Loading...
4-19-95 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIO WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1995, 7:00 P.M. — CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE — CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Site Plan Review of a 25,304 square foot office/warehouse facility on 2.16 acre lot, property zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development Industrial and located on Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, Paulstarr Enterprises Inc., Steiner Development, Inc. 2. Lundgren Bros. Construction to preliminary plat 36 acres of property into 35 single family lots, Highlands at L Lake St. Joe, located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway, north of Hwy. 5 and south of Lake St. Joe. L 3. Preliminary plat of Outlot B and Blocks 5, 6, 7, of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds 4th Addition and site plan review of a 70 unit senior housing building, Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. L4. Preliminary Plat to subdivide a 2.22 acre parcel into 4 lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6660 Powers Boulevard, Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis. iito veflotro Apr Preliminary plat of 7.29 acres into 35 lot single family townhomes and site plan review for 9 buildings of 3 and 4 plexes located on property zoned PUD and located east of Powers Boulevard,just south of Lake Susan Hills Drive, Lake Susan Townhomes 1st Addition, Jasper Development Corporation. Revised Preliminary plat of 35.83 acres of property into 52 single family lots and 2 outlots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway, Harstad Companies. 51306 _ L 7. Adoption of Planning Commission By-laws and Elect Chair and Vice-Chair. LOLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE II ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION L ADJOURNMENT E NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. 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 Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration Lwill be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. \\* CITYOFourm, I ' _ : :: : 4/19/9CUANHASS : 5/8/95 CASE #: 95-6 Site Plan STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 25,304 square foot office/warehouse for Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. Q LOCATION: Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition — V .J _ � APPLICANT: David Kordonowy Joe Cerami, Sr. Steiner Development, Inc Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. 3610 Highway 101 South 3170 Ranchview _ Q Wayzata, MN 55391 Plymouth, MN 55447 (612) 473-5650 (612) 559-8276 PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development, PUD ACREAGE: 2.16 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - IOP, railroad, vacant S - PUD, Nation Weather Service E - PUD, Jehovah Witness W - PUD, vacant 1;:it WATER AND SEWER: Available to site. CI PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is being prepared for development as part of the Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition. There are no significant environmental features on this lot. A vacant office/industrial lot abuts the property to the east. The lot abuts a public right-of-way on three sides: Lake Drive West (south) and Commerce Drive (west and north). 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial - :AN PAAK — __., , , , Y4 .1 7 pit ' I h dr ‘44111A.Hillirliklilr BOOL V4-. (..— :" . 1111,01ftlexW LI � 11I & 1111,4161 111111"111110 0 illi It I)--— e2ND STREET r? �. \ 1011111111)/1110 ,,`� P.agK - LOCATION �� t ,... N.4"41"441frtigil ► . ON ;(14l:'; / 7:-.., 4' ' n a � ,/ / f /f :,,,.. ., at- 11 ►� -" ---: ♦ {fes o S 1 wow PAR T.OIR :LYM4N (CR IB) r ♦inl - 43I—I I 8708—1 _ _ / ► o NY ' AqK - �f �A.� ? ! A. 11-o o I R• %ten 1 - J~ "' C.1 8800—//I _ �p ` -a- MIN on ov 44 o N 0,1".. Om = 1 lug`900 — �= �f LrM 1/ - 9 00N.Cr^ 1 , ( F HILL 9200 c' I `1 QDh< QgCu 95CO---___I r 9400-----.16; , //\ . / I"— 9500 1 --- / - ._.+1 7// — al 9.00 III --_ f----.i't.'r< _J •-'� Oyu } ` N.E -,,,..-_ I 7 4 .... F • DEPT. • - — ,oOMp •;-- i - *'� .J 3q7___� \ `c r 1\\ S.- I T REGIONLI ...\-__ . / ill ee' r— r O.' LEGEND �� i. V$ �1.wi0 my Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. April 19, 1995 Page 2 — PROPOSAL/SUMMARY — The applicant is proposing a 24,304 square foot office warehouse building on Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition. The proposed structure is divided into two units, one for Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc., consisting of 16,795 square feet (5,585 square feet office — and 11,210 square feet warehouse) and tenant space of 8,508 square feet. The proposed building is 18 feet in height. The main floor elevation is approximately three feet lower than Audubon Road to the east. The site slopes, generally, from southeast to northwest. The — grade for the loading dock area is three feet lower than the main floor elevation. The applicant has revised the architecture of the building since the originally submitted plans — to improve the architectural details. The building is 18 feet tall and consists of concrete blocks: medium grey rockface concrete masonry units (CMU), sanabel white rockfaced or scored burnished CMU, and bands of midnight black face brick. Staff believes that this detail — meets the requirements and intent of the city's site plan standards as well as the Chanhassen Business Center PUD. Staff is recommending that the entrances be revised to project out from the building in order to improve the entrance features and break up the monotony of the — building expanse. The applicant has not provided details on the rooftop equipment details. The applicant, however, has discussed the use of a preapplied outside panel on the equipment that would act to blend the equipment into the building. At a minimum, the applicant would — need to meet the conditions of the PUD. The applicant has prepared an extensive landscaping plan for the development. A minimum of 34 trees, 10 for the interior parking area and 24 for perimeter plantings are required for the site. The applicant does meet the requirements for landscape area. Six trees have been _ provided in the parking area. However, according to calculations, a minimum of 10 overstory trees are to be planted in or along the parking area. Staff is recommending an additional landscape peninsula in the northern parking lot area. Locations are to be shown on the landscape plan. Overstory trees chosen by the applicant are to be from the City's Approved Tree List with a Parking Location designation. Perimeter plantings meet calculation requirements, but additional screening will be required in the northeast section of the site to reduce visibility of loading area from Audubon Road. — The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, — the design guidelines established as part of the Chanhassen Business Center PUD, and the site plan review requirements. The site has few existing natural amenities due to previous development in the area. The site design is compatible and harmonious with the approved — buildings in industrial developments throughout the city. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions contained in this — staff report. Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. April 19, 1995 Page 3 — BACKGROUND On January 13, 1992, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for the Chanhassen Business Center as shown on the attached site plan. The PUD was amended in February 1993 to allow for a church as a permitted use. — The Chanhassen Business Center is an industrial/office park on 93.7 acres. The original plat consisted of 12 lots and 2 outlots. The ultimate development for this proposal was to have a — total of 700,000 square feet of building area with a mix of 20% office, 25% industrial and 55% warehouse. The first phase of final plat approval included two lots. The National Weather Service (NWS) was built on Lot 1, Block 2 and the Jehovah Witness Church was — built on Lot 1, Block 1. One of the original conditions of the PUD was that the perimeter landscaping was to be installed as well as the trail. Due to the extensive costs of grading and utility extension, the developers sought relief from this requirement. When the first two uses — were approved, the perimeter landscaping was required for these two uses only. The Jehovah Witness has completed their perimeter landscaping. The NWS building has posted _ surety for the completion of perimeter landscaping this spring. Staff will be adding a condition on the 2nd Addition plat that all required perimeter landscaping be completed with this phase. This landscaping will be consistent with the approved landscaping plan for the original PUD. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The development standards will remain the same as previously approved with the PUD. a. Intent — The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial/office park. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more — sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. — b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. _ Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. April 19, 1995 Page 4 1. Light Industrial. The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, or testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. 2. Warehousing. Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property. 3. Office. Professional and business office, non-retail activity. FINDING: The proposed uses are consistent with the parameters established as part of the PUD. c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and parking setbacks. The landscape buffer on Audubon Road is 50 feet, south of Lake Drive and 100 feet along the southern property line. The PUD zone requires a building to be setback 50 feet from the required landscape buffer and public right-of-ways. There is no minimum requirement for setbacks on interior lot lines. The following setbacks shall apply from the right-of-way: Building Parking Required (Lake Drive West 25' 15' Required (interior road system) 25 15' Provided (Lake Drive) 85 15' Provided (Street A) to west 56.5' 18' Provided (Street B) to north 72' 15' FINDING: The proposed development meets or exceeds the minimum setbacks established as part of the PUD. Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. April 19, 1995 Page 5 _ d. Development Standards Tabulation Box Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition CBC Lot Size - Bldg Bldg Sq. Building Coverage Impervious PUD Acres Ht. (ft.) Ft. Surface Proposed 2.16 40 26,000 28% 76% Lot 7 Paulstarr 2.16 18 25,304 26.9% 59.2% — Enterpris es, Lot 7 The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for office and industrial uses. Parking Standards: Office - 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet; Warehouse - 1 space per 1,000 for first 10,000 square feet, then 1 space per 2,000 square feet. Staff has estimated the required parking at 51 spaces. The applicant has provided 58 spaces. _ Building Square Footage Breakdown for entire development Office 20% 120,700 sq. ft. Manufacturing 25% 150,875 sq. ft. — Warehouse 54.09% 326,425 sq. ft. Church 0.91% 5,500 sq. ft. — Total 100% 603,500 sq. ft. FINDING: The proposed development meets the development standards established as part of the PUD. The city has previously approved the following square footages within the Chanhassen Business Center: church - 5,500 square feet; office - 24,932.5 square feet (National Weather Service and Power Systems); and warehouse - 20,317.5 square feet (Power Systems). e. Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. _ _ Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. April 19, 1995 Page 6 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block. 3. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. — 4. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 5. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, — textured or coated. 6. Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above — materials or curtain wall on office components or, as trim or as HVAC screen. 7. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 8. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. 9. The use of large unadorned, prestressed concrete panels and concrete block shall be — prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 10. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures for all developments in the Business Center. FINDING: The applicant has revised the architecture of the building since the originally _ submitted plans to improve the architectural details. The building is 18 feet tall and consists of concrete blocks: medium grey rockface concrete masonry units (CMU), sanabel white rockfaced or scored burnished CMU, and bands of midnight black face brick. Staff believes — that this detail meets the requirements and intent of the city's site plan as well as the Chanhassen Business Center PUD. Staff is recommending that the entrances be revised to project out from the building in order to improve the entrance features and break up the — monotony of the building expanse. The applicant has not provided details on the rooftop equipment details. The applicant, however, has discussed the use of a preapplied outside panel on the equipment that would act to blend the equipment into the building. At a — minimum, the applicant would need to meet the conditions of the PUD. Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. April 19, 1995 Page 7 f. Site Landscaping and Screening 1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I area to be installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping being required ahead of individual site plan approvals but we believe the buffer yard and plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a — separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 2 All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or — covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 3. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan — review. All approved outdoor storage must be screened with masonry fences and/or landscaping. 3. The master landscape plan for the CBC PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process. — 4. Undulating or angular berms 3' to 4' in height, south of Lake Drive along Audubon Road shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of Phase I grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed incrementally, but it shall be required where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. FINDING: The applicant has prepared an extensive landscaping plan for the development. _ A minimum of 34 trees, 10 for the interior parking area and 24 for perimeter plantings are required for the site. The applicant does meet the requirements for landscape area. Six trees have been provided in the parking area. However according to calculations, a minimum of 10 — overstory trees are to be planted in or along the parking area. Staff is recommending an additional landscape peninsula in the northern parking lot area. Locations are to be shown by the City on the landscape plan. Overstory trees chosen by the applicant are to be from the — City's Approved Tree List with a Parking Location designation. Perimeter plantings meet calculation requirements, but additional screening will be required in the northeast section of the site to reduce visibility of loading area from Audubon Road. Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. April 19, 1995 Page 8 g. Signage 1. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. 2. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. All signs require a separate permit. 3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. 4. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. FINDING: The applicant has provided a monument sign detail which shows a six foot high by eight foot wide sign which will use the same materials as the business. The sign complies with the requirements of the PUD. However, the site plan must be revised to maintain a 10 foot setback from the property line for the monument sign. The applicant is showing a schematic of the wall sign. It appears to comply with code requirements. Additional details will be required at the time of permitting for the sign. h. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. 2. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. 3 Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. 4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. FINDING: The applicant has not provided lighting details or calculations for this development. However, city ordinance and the PUD standards provide sufficient control to assure compliance to an established standard. Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. April 19, 1995 Page 9 — ACCESS The preliminary plat of Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition recently received preliminary plat approval and is now in the process of being final platted. This site is being developed in conjunction with the overall plat improvements. Access to this site is from — proposed Commerce Drive ("A" Street) and Lake Drive West. Lake Drive West is currently built adjacent the parcel. All driveway curb cuts shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Industrial Driveway Detail Plate No. 5207 (Attachment 1). The pavement sections proposed in the parking and loading dock areas are to be based on a soils engineer's recommendations. GRADING & DRAINAGE This site is proposed to be rough graded in conjunction with the other public improvements — by the developer as part of Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition. Only minor site grading is anticipated for the parking lots. The drainage plan is in accordance with the _ overall master stormwater drainage plan to be approved with the Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition construction plans. The storm water will be conveyed via a storm sewer drainage system at the regional pretreatment pond located within the development. Staff will _ require that the applicant's engineer supply the City with storm drainage calculations for a 10- year storm event to verify pipe capacities and catch basin locations on the site. UTILITIES In conjunction with the platting of Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, utility — improvements will be extended along Commerce Drive ("A" Street) to service the site. EROSION CONTROL — The grading plan indicates erosion control measures being incorporated around the perimeter of the site. Staff also recommends that a rock construction entrance be utilized at all access — points to the site. In addition, catch basins should be protected with silt fence and/or hay bales prior to paving the parking lots. MISCELLANEOUS The applicant should be aware that no construction activities may commence on the site until -' the final plat has been recorded and the development contract executed by the developer of Chanhassen Business Center. Interim access to the site may be from existing Lake Drive Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. April 19, 1995 Page 10 West. The driveway must meet the City Fire Marshal's recommendation for ingress and egress at all times. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan for the Paulstarr Building. Based on staff calculations of vehicular use area, the applicant is required to provide 2,434.9 square feet of parking lot landscape area. A minimum of 34 trees, 10 for the interior parking area and 24 for perimeter plantings are required for the site. The applicant does meet the requirements for landscape area. Six trees have been provided in the parking area. However according to calculations, a minimum of 10 overstory trees are to be planted in or along the parking area. Staff is recommending an additional landscape peninsula in the northern parking lot area. Locations are to be shown by the City on the landscape plan. Overstory trees chosen by the applicant are to be from the City's Approved Tree List with a Parking Location designation. Perimeter plantings meet calculation requirements, but additional screening will be required in the northeast section of the site to reduce visibility of loading area from Audubon Road. Plant material quantities on the Landscape Schedule and the Landscape Plan differ significantly. Applicant must provide City with revised schedule that correctly reflects quantities on Landscape Plan. The applicant shall provide aeration/irrigation tubing in each peninsular or island type landscape area containing a tree that is less than 10 feet in width. The applicant shall install automatic irrigation in all site landscape areas. A financial security (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $17,700.00 to guarantee landscaping for the project. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE The applicant has not provided lighting details or calculations for this development. However, city ordinance and the PUD standards provide sufficient control to assure compliance to an established standard. The applicant has provided a monument sign detail which shows an six foot high by eight foot wide sign which will use the same materials as the business. The sign complies with the requirements of the PUD. However, the site plan must be revised to maintain a 10 foot setback from the property line for the monument sign. The applicant is shown a schematic of the wall sign. It appears to comply with the PUD and code requirements. Additional details will be required at the time of permitting for the sign. Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. April 19, 1995 Page 11 — SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; — (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or `- developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: _ a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general — community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; — c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent — and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives — and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and — arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision — for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. April 19, 1995 Page 12 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 is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the design guidelines established as part of the Chanhassen Business Center PUD, and the site plan review requirements. The site has few existing natural amenities due to previous development in the area. The site design is compatible and harmonious with the approved buildings in industrial developments throughout the city. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Site Plan 95-6 on plans prepared by AKRW dated 3/20/95 and Schoell & Madsen, Inc. on plans dated 3/20/95 for a 25,304 square foot office/warehouse building on Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: _ 1. The pavement sections in the parking and loading dock areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with recommendations from a professional soils engineer. 2. All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Design Detail (Plate No. 5207 - attached). 3. No building permits or grading may commence on the site until after the final plat has been approved and recorded and the developer of Chanhassen Business Center has executed the development contract. 4. The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10-year storm event to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances and protection around the catch basins shall be employed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook until the parking lots are paved. 6. Additional information is needed on type of processes, product commodities, height of storage, etc. to assure compliance with fire codes. 7. A minimum of 10 overstory trees are to be planted in or along the parking area. Staff is recommending an additional landscape peninsula in the northern parking lot area. Locations are to be shown on the landscape plan. Overstory trees chosen by the Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. April 19, 1995 Page 13 applicant are to be from the City's Approved Tree List with a Parking Location designation. Perimeter plantings meet calculation requirements, but additional — screening will be required in the northeast section of the site to reduce visibility of loading area from Audubon Road. Applicant shall work with staff to revise the landscaping plan to incorporate the changes. 8. Plant material quantities on the Landscape Schedule and the Landscape Plan differ significantly. Applicant must provide the city with revised schedule that correctly — reflects quantities on Landscape Plan. 9. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty — (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material — throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. 10. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. All signs require a separate permit. The monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. 11. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme _ will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 12. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. 13. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. 14. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. 15. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 16. Revise the building entrances to project out from the building in order to improve the entrance features and break up and add relief to the large building expanse. Specifically, the block be built out from the remainder of the building facade — enclosing the entry area. Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. April 19, 1995 Page 14 17. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials. 18. The applicant shall provide aeration/irrigation tubing in each peninsular or island type landscape area containing a tree that is less than 10 feet in width. The applicant shall install automatic irrigation in all site landscape areas. A financial security (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $17,700.00 to guarantee landscaping for the project. 19. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Building Perspective (from southwest) 3. Building Perspective (from southeast) 4. Site Plan 5. Building Elevations _ 6. Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan 7. Chanhassen Business Center Preliminary Plans 8. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 4/6/95 9. Industrial Driveway Plate No. 5207 dated 2-91 10. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 11. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 4/7/95 12. Tree Guide, from A Guide to Field Identification: Trees of North America, C. Frank Brockman, Western Publishing Company, Inc., 1986 13. Plans dated March 20, 1995. CITY OF CHANHASSEN _ 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: f?(4 EP �A • OWNER: ( _ ul'7ticrr ADDRESS: .3 t, I {( y.L f I f I ADDRESS: 3l "1C p,„, , A v. rcJ TELEPHONE (Day time) 1-f 1 • c'L TELEPHONE: 5 '1 - `; 1-7 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review X. Notification Signs 9. A Site Plan Review , X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** $1�0 QUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP 0 2 $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ i 3. 4 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract •/ PROJECT NAME C i�,c ,( �"[ ctrr �Il'f i ) s( C'�-�!"I.: /b'L' �i14 •:ti�� - LOCATION ( L � / l ((�� ++ I 4 (� ii.t.l• cSf; fi,^`�.,,L-SC Lf rt 1. )1.�1 Fi,'1,"14-ti Pt 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (eft"4h,1‘ - PRESENT ZONING 146 REQUESTED ZONING Oz/rt PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION C- cr G` Lt REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION -t rt(i�-- REASON FOR THIS REQUEST tyt.t' I I A- r..' c; 'n- cr r/-t•< "-fcti>t t (1-4 4_ 1I C aNUJ. :1 to Ii•:^- .n � This application must be coriipleted in full and be typewritten or cl6arly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party - whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded - against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. _0 Gam!' 11 —.2/ — Signature of Applicant G Date `317/7`5— Signet/re Fee Owner / Date u're o 64 Application Received on _3.)/Z-1) 5 Fee Paid 75 . . Receipt No. 50 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. • el CI) / .0co C / O- ct , ti yr� l� � 0 _ 4. �i�; ..... 1 if I' •, :dammisif ., , NWt -4$•.'i few ,. - --.. ) .' ' • _ E \ i .- co 1► in _itit . : r Z 1 :�. 4+#0 z:-A----- -''•%:...itzks.timi • ---;—..---- ,:4111,.% l'Illii :: r / i °### , Y ; 1 !L: , ffire.fi ev, .;,,;! . \ °S,s .. _ • • 414 l O- _ ✓ � 4 p cD � ,� rte. t sNiki :y. (. r V;Vir?':1111„ AO MEME MI Ipa .11 my-NV lk MID kl.A.1 F not .i► :j v I I=::9 I 111111 St,y.` 14, •, 4 0 u CI En (I)co -=I C m. m — (o Z -13 o " r mo )) S gi a s •• •- / • n 4 'A'STREET i; it 1 ■ �_,- -o00p--- i_ Do OO --e ,.. 2) oe, OD •a I �� .+ O 0 ppp • �� ■ �N� 1}ejK( ■ ■ Q � u ■ ■ ■ •■ p — RR�d,:-�1 vi.A. cJ g 11 ri P i i: S QJ • itWit m 3 r • °°pO �{ g v ;� i °° SFS i Z I Milo _ a •11.1 Ip i1 ri-o- ii= GeJ mcom • • • II I f -- A — f I § .=puTirill raw ■_■■■I�\-/1 ..E11 °���l 'If' � r 1 :po.Aa 111 1 ■_�:■lar'�_■ 41 re . 1 j , _. .. — - ---i :1•i(ii l'sg,,11 �; • i ::11111: ■■■■■_■ ��� 1 :i I. 1: 44440,1 ■_■■■■■_■ o 0 o �� '! + ■=■■■■■�■ t7 v) m r. CD 0. o CD b c - _ • I. 1111 . ■ ' um A- I • iiii• --- . ... 6ilJ11 M ' ' 1111 _. II•r ii I D U 0 li q . i�6I Z Si _ c4 /' 1; I ' �� H 1r .i az 03 rn ■ = rn: c 1,_:1 › ■ <6 ■i Z ■ ■ I II lii ii I ! ii u 11 II 1 MIN II MI . EMI • I■ ■ :moi V M O '\ \ 1 i iti I < (`"j r 0 ; 'L„3 I111111ili:ii tlt ei I---��' i ro !I� 3n�ip (p r I �` �� I'�� III/-s n � rI► L=� III {3 DX/ 1 ; IL1 MII-' AA I ;z D ; Pi !III , i , ' g I it �► n = ISI m I I! m Ip Ud I I j1 1 I lip 1 1� - - j � I . I .0._,,,,, ..,57- .. -,. ,,,_______.2..›.Th:.___-....A. ••••—•'' --2-2,1,1,---,— ./if__—_,_i ....., a ta,', g . .--- . - I I!, if N ,....\ 1 ,I 1-7-• ...---,..... i s,.. I ' 2 ti .S / —„�— ----wig!_ �'�,�__ ga �� �'1 E D I ' c �\ .______________ ____ ._,,_._,:242,_ 2s T Anfit�.. `' 1� • ' •i r '.1 - i pias S�aai< t�\is'_- L__wN ` \ 1 /;1 ` ` !- 1 1 I 11 I i 33 ! s1 c I - F ' - G --- — Il- - - - _ 1 i _ aI I 3 1 .. i3 IE► ' i I!1 �- i Z ;I �,\ ii s i a 1 ;. I 1 € ru ll1 c' i : 1 a 3%I - -tom — I 1 % I I _ ` • 1 I1 1 !I" ss _ _1 it VD r till iF/ I /.:FSI g / d—; 1 i t. ' r Ih� ;its 1 I / Hi/J Ft! 1 \\ O �,— ; mss./ 1\ I I!� I a•. 1 — L— F I j IIIa1I I 1 \ /- it 11I ..F: 0 • 1' I \ '\ f k i (--: .., _ _ ___ Pi I I \ ` ` `_-M_ C-_ i r; /� 044 • \ - \\.` W U / 11 E ( 11111 E 1 I --E I 1 --E I : t I :t.s I t I I t I ��! ££ ! ! : sa s s s! -II ! •t ttf .1 I I I kk - a'3 s •5j \, s I ! I it IIIIIIi :j iI hilt - ` II li = i 1 1 ki =_ I — o••; \ t t;Ilai i II i.iitiIlli ' sl 111;11i' 3 1IP!t s "' li zs \ £ £ ilSsil £ t sEII'sil £ E£ri• ' s E£ : R 1 \ — $ II \ \ . % z— =Z==== i., 41UhihI > II •_ 1 ' M S I ,t t i ;: t t i r si >z6 I- ‘..." 1 \,,, — i \• �4 ,C — - II . co :4 gen 0 I mz ti - ` / ., d > , r ^`:5" •-1 s 1...........c_.„1--_-- _ -c `: - �_ % _T _ �..• �\\ s 5�. . — _1s. \‘ \ -N§p ` kii1 , — �F\•` \ aat sr ;;�f C V . l ..0..0 • i s. art A • ••••• .--.. ' .... ... R i/ 1.<\-':,` l\'- .. `e++▪ -•R -- 3sll\__ it '.' i ••,'--eVSOZ•c`�-- _J ., it ..( �t\ �� I �. ; iii • \t 4s•`a :•4....:1-............ - � �=t`^n ),l /-.... ac tom a- ♦ < .. iii ....':1.----7,ak.3. - �..� Is, ----. ---------It: --- 106.44..RO.!1 ....,,t• .;•1.<.Io.• ' a+s0•t O.K. I ••Orc. S..•.•-. O•a .........16.0 9 ANA!'_.64:,61S0CAttS.R,G 7 ,.-.� I PRELIMINARY CORS BANS _ _ ~• ~~� 4UOUBON 92 OAR TNERSt� I I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION � u•1t C .S:_'r.0 ENC.'�EERS 11741 CREEKSIOC COURT Ott....•9SE\BUSINCS5 CENTEJ PASTER S'P.a.. .--+_ .:r-•._..!t�:1•.'.(1,' ••0 ii' ',:J�.'• EDEN PRUSK.IAN,55476 I .w, o �.:w•...•.tsc.1.1.• ....:.. — :�iii 6 06 t CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �T (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM _ TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4 q(.— DATE: April 6, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-6 SPR (Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc., Steiner Development, Inc.) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAR 20 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application at this time. I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. g:\safety\saNmemos'plan'no-comnt W ZH 0 H EnD Z (7 <H >- _Z La XO r J N W—) J [., 1 , W k till i W I Cr CC - wise'! I t=-- --- 0 a W U I - C7 Z W ,,77) F- I El !- W z COCO .lx . o , i—o r CO‘`--- ‘ (\ill . . CL -s---«4t." W ? Cr W J W D 1!1 co J O I W 3t J CO Z < I cn ��Q F—cn 5 > ick I . * v) U< x 4. CL I m I >-- T m E I • >i 1-FyW-� L y. Ucn NDN T f U �q - ,v co . . � . wU Z~ �3> 1- .i 0 fro uy muct. I— WW Old < Q ~U W DW 4 Z = N t7 3� O � NI � U� • U LI- Z ." 00 d �� P/ ' t I— _0U)> Mod — HmJ � , <Q 3< ti d OZe UI •t CITY OF INDUSTRIAL NIANIIASOEN DRIVEWAY DATE 2-91 PLATE NO. 5207 4727-e-. ice;// ,- PARK I rkm 1 A_ i _ . t, • - BOL VAR. .------ NOTICE OF PUBLIC �1.1i4 L HEARING _ PLANNING COMMISSION , ® �• �" "`. --i-I-N--I•—M MEETING A �� +���,�,- Wednesday, APRIL 19, 1995• ..- LOCATION • at 7:00 p.m. =irq -'� ' City Hall Council Chambers ct ►O � ' %t ' r . 690 Coulter Drive \I. w II 4, . �a 4,<0.•,,• / tip —.Iao 'y % s��und'2o I�• � Project: Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. � / .. o ,.voltam"&```.;3 r ' 4. -+tom' 4110, � PARK j111" v.. ��- ;: �Y Developer: Steiner Development, Inc. 1 7.4, L . , ..,- " p `° ' •ARK .i'Y ,._.„,i_,_, `i - N r , Location: Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassen `, �'` � 1 " `�°1 Business Center 2nd Addition ' "1”......"-r. ' ', �' . a. — 1 , - . F..._ Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your — area. Steiner Development, Inc. is requesting a site plan review of a 25,304 square foot office/warehouse facility on 2.16 acre lot, property zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development Industrial and located on Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you — about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: -- 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. — 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. — Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop _ by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the — meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 23, 1995. — DAVID A STOCKDALE CHAN LAND MERLE & J VOLK 7210 GALPIN BLVD 200 HWY. 13 WEST 16925 CO RD 40 — EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BURNSVILLE MN 55337 CARVER MN 55315 — CHARLES MATTSON DENNIS & PAMELA STRAND Mr. Jim Stanton 2870 WHEELER ST NO 8640 AUDUBON RD Shamrock Development ROSEVILLE MN 55113 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 580 Dodge Ave. Elk River, MN 55330 WILLIAM & V GOERS REDMOND PRODUCTS DANIEL & K OBERMEYER - 1601 LYMAN BLVD 18930 WEST 78TH STREET 1540 HERON DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL & G SUTER ARGUS DEVELOPMENT JEFFREY & A KULLBERG — 1530 HERON DR 18133 CEDAR AVE S 8480 BITTERN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FARMINGTON MN 55024 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL & J ADLER BROOK & S LILLESTOL ROBIN WHITE & 8470 BITTERN CT 8460 BITTERN CT DAWNE CHRISTIANSON - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8451 BITTERN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 — SCOTT & S KOBASICK BRIAN ROME CURRENT OWNER 8450 BITTERN CT 8461 BITTERN CT 8471 BITTERN CT — CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 — MICHAEL & D CHOINIERE David & Sheila Keller John and Connie Herring 8481 BITTERN CT 8491 BITTERN CT 1500 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM & L GUNN Brian and Theresa Blahut GREGORY & JULIE DOEDEN — 1490 HERON DR 8490 SWAN CT 8480 SWAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER & J PAROLA CURT & D SANTJER JAMES & B NELSON — 8470 SWAN CT 8460 SWAN CT 1591 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES & D OLSON JOSEPH & C KAMMERMEIER HAROLD SCOTT & 1581 HERON DR 1551 HERON DR JODIE FLOLID — CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1541 HERON DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SOO LINE RAILROAD Gareth J. Davies MARK & D LAASER ATTN DENNIS MORRISSEY 1831 SUN RIDGE CT 8037 ERIE AVE — BOX 530 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 MARLIN EDWARDS DOUGLAS BARINSKY WAYNE BONGARD 8950 AUDUBON ROAD 8731 AUDUBON ROAD 8831 AUDUBON ROAD _ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RON ENTINGER THOMAS MICHEL George & Desa Zraick 8851 AUDUBON ROAD 8941 AUDUBON ROAD 8850 AUDUBON ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 — MICHAEL & J COCHRANE MITCHELL & M KRAUSE JAMES & L LEIRDAHL — 1751 SUN RIDGE CT 2380 TIMBERWOOD DR 2350 TIMBERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TODD & S PAETZNICK CURRENT OWNER ALAN & K HEBING _ 10 LONGOBARDIE DR 2290 TIMBERWOOD DR 6290 PAINTERS CIR FRANKLIN MA 02038 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MOUND MN 55364 MARK FOSTER & GESTACH & PAULSON CONST DAVID GESTACH KAREN OLSSON 200 N CHESTNUT ST 1531 SUNSHINE CIR — 8020 ACORN LANE CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD CZECK & — PATRICA FOLZ-CZECK James & D. Lano Blair & S Bury APT 1 2060 Oakwood Ridge 6040 Burlwood Court 6147 CHASEWOOD PKWY Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331-8801 — MINNETONKA MN 55343 CURRENT RESIDENT JAMES & C DOCKENDORF MARTIN G HAHN 2051 OAKWOOD RIDGE 2061 Oakwood Ridge 3528 IDAHO AVENUE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 NEW HOPE MN 55427 DAVID & G MCCOLLUM RUSSEL & E CHANCE STANLEY & CHRISTINE RUD_ 2050 RENAISSANCE COURT 15561 HILLCREST CT N 2030 RENAISSANCE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT & R LAWSON GERARD & B MURKOWSKI CURTIS & JEAN BEUNING 2041 RENAISSANCE COURT 510 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE 2381 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE — CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BURNSVILLE MN 55337 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW & S. RICHARDSON MARK & NANCY BIELSKI RICHARD & E. LARSON 8120 PINEWOOD CIRCLE 8140 PINEWOOD CIRCLE 8141 PINEWOOD CIRCLE — CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM & LANA MILLER JAMES & BONITA ROEDER GREGORY & JILL PERRILL 8121 PINEWOOD CIRCLE 8101 PINEWOOD CIRCLE 2101 Timberwood Drive CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ CRAIG & M. HARRINGTON GREG & B. VANDERVORSTE GREG & JULIE SORENSON 8140 MAPLEWOOD TERRACE 8141 MAPLEWOOD TERRACE 8121 MAPLEWOOD TERRACE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NEIL KLINGELHUTZ CONST JEFFREY & JOAN HEINZ BRADLEY J FOLEY & — 9731 MEADOWLARK LANE 2071 Timberwood Drive JUDITH A WERNER CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 2061 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT & NANCY KROCAK DAVE & KAREN MAENKE Randy Corfman 2051 TIMBERWOOD DR 2041 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE 2031 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE — CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 4 CITY OF .i . 0,,,o. . .,. CHANHASSEN _ _ . `,,':' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 y (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — MEMORANDUM — TO: Robert Generous, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: April 7, 1995 _ SUBJ: Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition _ Paulstarr Enterprises, Inc. Steiner Development, Inc. Planning Case #95-6 SPR _ I have reviewed the site plan in order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division and have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements: — 1) Additional information is needed on type of processes, product commodities, height of storage, etc. — 2) Fire hydrant locations are acceptable. --il _ --havemkomml 1 V 11 I g:\safetyNm1\95.6 I 1 ___- - d x �. x x h ,� , : � N v• a 4 r if -1._ , 2 .• . tiA ._ --4V..' -). 'l : ., _.c ... ,._, .,...........,.. . ‘,.,,, . . --- 'VL, \ c �� y-- _ re, ` . . • ti .4 • •Adi %,Ny : r =; ...- '1ti•b '� a _ -.:6... .ti`s F,,,...„,, -.-",,V....:..... )1, .4.•: - 0 , ..:;...41 _• :•*',..,. 1-,-. st,?0,1.4 fi7, r✓ �o7h✓ws "...:Z""°41°11';;SI c d ',p ,cO, d ai _ p O >a.7 �>• >..>'.....q -co.° z_-.- 7 u O5 > Oc L O G O- Oar.-` 3 V V L d.V r p . 0-0-0O ° p 0-3 ° >. a -- aP ° •• o- rn voLf x Oa , ap >uq . O, aO, c O, a-L-0 ; v E., ° v ' c o 0,0 0 0'D rnQQ v y w a E og. x co - c c ` > : . d3 _sc-0 � = L 0 L CD CC W 60 a d C OIC a a— >••...2d °< o ° » o` 6 „ ` C, xc °�vL N. uQ •rD f v _— EOfa..,-) 7 c '4., 0▪ .v O LY.ppy L >-0 .2.2., -. c 5 al • i c cEa- O u � c Z t O a o . > Lo O o OE p^ ° d L .E_ L d D � yO, rnp o 0 E dvo — >, a, � w a. 3 c�s ° m s ° ° c c oQ cv o o . o0� o om :c c .-0 om ° o » o >. ° ooEm>. o3 ° T. 5 '.-v ° c �' ox .• .fl-p o a OO 6 EO c- O a, C .a .E 2t. 8.-F_,,-:E 2 c d121 O O p • C » °i o 22j' Oa• L � OO � ° a3a - o00 ° » ° 0 °41 d Eo E. xO. 0• W v L c•' da a .n 2 a, o „ o " �° E ; a7 da �N04 fa. 0. 3 » ) O O ayOO iiaQ a .E 3O, 0 ` N O d a v, OM aE- ` '' C c tC a a y ; 0 ° O d 5,cc To 6. �d �o `cLL: ° o `uZ a` 3 ° ' ;c Ec a,I-o P E, » a, �_ii ° 4 . r 6.. v °,•.. E L w o 8 N ; 3 ° E o .� a, L • a v v c c a' O d . a, o ai » o. o • o a c o o •0- cM . cvv d .- x?”a« 'a a ���v_'c E - H o `-0QQ Fp,v_� 41=,c o y > o o 0 a, '' CD 0 Q. °tom ° oL -v 3 i E lu o T > > o a.N a ' V O ,n E - >; ' p ° ; °c- N�p =CD o o:D I In o, a o- M -_.D,_122 a1 a4.Q,L .O-• al_c'.- _ O E O N O C`Ii-cO ` •••'en E. cu > Q O•C L » , • u, .V E v 8 °1- 0 . 000._00— - .4. 0 a o ° t E al (, a, ,, a, y) Of F ei O _p c c H H 0 0 ,_ V O t 3 a7 Q a�L P 8 OL . 0 V a« a - .4 O 4 c 0-0 °0 — 0- O d QL a, ° »L d Z L O'CLa V > aL FU T > >. ° '..'CO•aV/.c H 0, 30 `y0• 0p0•_ `, Z ' oC OL dVt -oYcO • I'0•E lo vi .v - o' Tv .•-z o�•E a- Sr ar�� E 3�..c a`, uWi�_ Q' "= .5 _.c a o.E ao-o p . ° aI c O ° o ar E o �Z u o v oct o O-0 DCO `^. c 7w� In o O a 3 V 3 c E— 0 0 c•- L `E N IUI1HIIHflII1I o ._ o, H a0 C7< 3 f7oo a•-. •-. oaof O l J c. pi N • .r - __ _ cc.) : iy, -- ,..„,., 1 . _ _ , .,_ _}:3 ""14 L. r A. „or,� s < y`. _ fi . mo ' i ' . ) •• ile‘i IP- ft.,• ♦ . -. ^ / p. v- - c C • -- u o r a, - u:-o - ' 7, o >•3 1.' `+ .aO C C o vo ..O. ° `°- yO 0 vVE cN ,- C 6,d .nC E 'Q oO. y 0 a a 0 Oo V ° ° 0 cr °` L ..,c c =o a 0 d v� c ; C E avm p py > Nt- ° c `r u ° E v z o a u c c'� u 4.,-' E n c 0 • 0 •° 0O9 O n o >`3 c 0- O a 0 L j O p O _� 3 "' ° >` -a ; to av 0 o O • .- °+ c.- C uo v ` uaz „ =7, Q > o oL . wo u s m c a,•. a ° o o+ v 'vo-=, vE� -. E _ c a ° ci w(••••,1.-, ocN6, 6E , a v _ - c.E QOdC o C; C � ° 7, o 0 "S- oa 0cor _ � -- cN ; o ° c - ch0, " • o v ° o > o -L � >v ° ° ca, ° u o` :. a . a =Qm u � '''tM LVo ° - on-co - 000 v ° da d � •v — • ) cc , -00� - - ° c C ",:5 .- .12 rn� ° O c� o E = c -° Vv c 0o o = ° G ' u0 aso.o,: 1 , Ci : `1 _, ,............... ..,, i. , 4,. .., r, . . .... .., ,„ ,... C____. a ... .... a da n ..fi ., • -\17.44„\- o tet► : o -' 4 • gooi. T _ • .�.� 1 • ir ��?� 'mags er 450 3� . ,, �� ..ter• 1/4...4 .. ._....-------4- 0.---- ..- . •-.4„.,..., it o a -"Ai c ' E v-c o „ a+ 2 u 2-5, 3 M, o a... ' od u o 0 — rnm >. o'� ^- -- .E ` g, c ° ; v E ..°_' rn _ O a`, E o a a v v -,n' o o, d ° o __ c rn ° ° -0 a, ° ,- o 0 > c o `0 a, a» . L ,0 O E W H O O d= : E v w N L O L a,°.0-0 E 0 0`•- d d •0 N C F. 0 Y 0 w O.O o, r `co a a, a, ~ E L 0 `p , .c:6-oc 0 E O 7_> a, 0.. ). a °' L �~ a 0 M5 2 E - N N ` V p 3 M c « E 3 a) N ...L 0 L —a.a l 1 u E p a °- c F- 6 ° a.`, O a, >•L L `'D T.O 3 `,_O L4 3 .D a, rb 0 '-< O V a' - a N- a^ > V 0. L .•. V 0— C, V > .�-L a d W > u ` a ` a, . ° a°'L u , a`, E 3 0 °- a s u ° °f a,.c ; 0 a, c v > c f-�'-0 u a a` o.c' 0 >h 0 ` � O N O u a, O z-6 .., 0 c d -c a a a L a �D O >'3 0 � E cO N �' 3 � a V ° `—„ c 'a O E ,,p c a, c-o. c V a w_ a/ b- a 0 0 E >, d _ > O N-0 p >. - .. O C d — _a— E al O O C c-13 V > .a a, a, a, . L O . 3 a T M ,_ L L v a _ °v O d u0_c p'a 0 al °V O p a, E a a, o v rn ` a,-- c c 0 u ; �,o '� r'. a.E _� o �"� �cv oda > ° ° v= o `er p. L. ° o°L . a•_ a, L. O a, > ` 01 0 '0 c 0 >. a 41-x «N .N V O V L a c0 p° O._ 0 1.,. 0 0 >.„[.� �,N E v u ° c v E o a " v c c :, w. ° - 3,-c d ` ..0 a w , m U a o o •a ` a, . Q o� E... - o h o-0 E o-a c c a, a, o c .L ° u-0 o E- v > ; v ° - v��n oma } o >. a) a u� 3 E ala,w „ o u _. 0 a. o.° Q- E v 0-0 °i^ c a .0 3 ,. -.a 3 " O ., O.� 0 - c -o� Qv o 0 a.EL O O -0 c n•o� c-c aL� 3 d Q . >.'5 a, a, - > o E o '3Y � o o a W c v a ;�-. L) 2, aE m p.E Q-o N � ra a N � aL d > a �r.rj L N•p L o' 'u .d 0 A 07 6 a s p= c V C•E•a ° V ° 3 a, a,_. 0 0 0.-1.-°_au a j c c N_pL� E.La Q d au aO,.cam o a „ 5� O o = .y.o at yY o ar r Q ° c o »�� cm 1,060 Q 3 -F c v > '- cu 0 nc u > 3 c a a ` „- o ° a ° �'Li Ea a s `mv c ° v v o vNaM Ov 3 ° a oxo•=„_o. c_ > -0. u OCE „ °-0 0o c aLaa7 d O L O, L.D >. Y1 ' . a, y T c Q, p a1 0 ° `, >' O h ° •' C 'OV J Ea°, °1 U °- p o E 3 > `cp 0,•-c >LL �, > a, a, a o 3 cL O L a,aL 3o rn y ° E W t;, S 2 O °a0 ,_ a, 0', aO = VL0.D0. „ 000Ot O 3000 . 0 Q L.`IviLl ° dr Ot - J g• aV .nvOa- aL l0 E N.c w.� d 3 7. N c: r w V ar m N O F X O.fl °.E O V.c•c 1L•-- a °-.X ,:,` `ice . ! Cf— Q [---L- m • O - b��.�`.� W O 2i,„/ C y O _ .a k. Q . 0 f a in of .S . S r :. cg • "•,. 6. - :-. $ i . . . . ,fir,-'t ;i0;.1 0 ,.- -. . - es• k kk, 4109. LI t' yl c //w� 1 ' j`` i r ix Li • ' 4,k- x li i,-% .14.., __ �:_ p ' :` • Vr.v.' - --- .j, - .R..--lr .**7, C.. - -- -- S ftlgtelli.'-i 6 NP'rao•-•.-2%-..-.- i, .. .. u p c ap' -0 ° O � 0 ... Y `L 0 oVVcE•- o ---° °° c `o oc0 > ° — - Ea . p7 0 v c N Eo � c aco -o 30 v o b`. ` Yz0 ...- - o. - E o v 7, »is o ai u n d ou ° ioc � u ' -, rn o v »vi : L Y E 0 ..o O c7d _ >' N� v o h.. O OVA >, - oa. op ° N4O ° aovO v do > v ° QO ao =c o E ` -_r2 8 0o.e - cNtov�oQ '- • 3r1+U = ° o •E - Q o •a.- > �+ u 7 v ` 0 >,aa >r� N u .mv 81)�.v O c 'OEq0 7 0 =- c » o ° oO v a v.� c » NN •o. O � NaCd - � ° 7E0 • - > � � uc � Oy.T� pNU ` L L 2NLLAO p d p f ` d• .° a o c0d3X E ° � EOE Q o » ° ; Z °o 3 �r - .: p 0 O0 ° . OcL p ° OE 7cL > ° � N ). 7 0) 0 .- E0 •CVv•yYLN o vW O w O cap `o - -_ 4)ac 3.C ` o ° ...aE a ° -0 c °iU3o `: .- a ' M yrvap u ` o o o ° v ° ouo1..: `.5 -vai� - ac r' 0 -50-, 1? -6 o ° a'_ *- CC vp c -7 v E v 3 - ' _ ; ° o >°- N „° p '^ p c c 6.,Q o " ° QN L.- ` ° -, 0 i °. .°QL4)1- E < opv0o E oVvVo cO 6� c0 ° 3ocO V' S'0ac�O ocooYrpo. vT > acco3 ; .cv G >: Oa •W r -0 V 7C, U ` O0 • O r,O.a � `V p > >. °OO aoa s 0, c~1 01 O p W N ' ,+ z • DO F. II 0 OcOvd . ` Q vQ Oi °crOo o h° ° oLa° •E cr-V Q ° 3 pv ^ °v av jrnL„ 13 2-, cn ° c, mla.o o `i ..Ov rn,° o ; Lv o uQ E .- oWN ° VO^ La . •=.' r,.C.c L_ -- Fo . ,.c •• •W d._ j - cV •-0dc .- L o icC 'o o Z a - c c }OCc ` v !, O ch0 cw O tO a3 ..�• gEo _vV ?.�3 u °o_ - v '. C0 , •-,.' - . o« 0Yo_ r0 ` poavdoQm-0 .. > L H - Or, c _- L W ,.. v 0=,2 aE ° , oL .e Y_ -O O ;., Y- ZO•c c p Y ° O f a cOha t- o'` E O �, c p a, minu, 1.,- v 0- E ti v- ° E~ o ° ocOZ" c ., w 0O o ° V�' ooL o a= .1o -0a o °v, E . c L noh '^ o L. ° o ° c > r,dr ccc3rn-03.n ° L' c ccco . °: * 4”. cv� •- c v-° ac ° IF, c._u ° Oh c°i Or O: Lai` p G L.0 0 ° • o, y E" o >r W W ` co. Y j 0ZQ .. ma^ ,> ° W `° Z Ei h v1� �J --- I ::vv, _v/ 'i • Q H ZO O Z ;� O J .i fwG \; ` . a \ O le. , `' l • `f • V. \r d am'', t�f l • • r -�..r� ,• tier; �. i.`v • • , v• ' � 'la -D•._moi: o . sr •y- 1 4; ! ' i t '.�jtiyc,l�;� M !/ y -�' lir, � _ o M ° 3 > > C C ° 2-5 C Y O Y-OdO''--° °- d ° CWO ` wO 6 d r T_ ` C O O, .i 3 c", C-0 _0 Lv ' > .° O O C h E O p .D C4N 3 OC c 1 O. r y d E c L.9. + r a .,O N 0 >` 2 c `y Cf c c ` 'O • `O x a, 3 6°, 0 °i vv mm c u o'er o ° x c ov•. c v o 0 o rnd c o a0 a.° ° on-LE a s o_0 7,-,16 m °.- o a 3 ^, a 3° 0- ° �„L.E o, E o v >. o E E o, 3 h E••" C--x-6-O oY u O'9 O E O.- A C L O u 6-- t ° N ° a o c'•E C c E Q•Q.a, E L ° » E0 al c - a u o 3 o „ oc . o c o m o L c.E'°.3 ,'•c 0 7 L O 0 0 -0 d w ° c a Y T ° E 'p L °, ° )" E a c°0 6 j•_ G ° ° .. j 0 — O v C J+O`^T0`, 03-0= , NOL c a E I' o `~.` a— >• d y .a v' d E V ° " O,V•--•,L d E. 7, C x ' O '+ 7 ' U d 6, ° c ` c.._ 7 °f C C °1~L_E. ..- 000-C2(:).." u a H.� F. E, E •g c >ch v E `32:2 '-' 0.-'--„,., 0 L c -Y c • ` N COa 3.�C.4 3 E •c ( 0' ,p .2..12 : c•N o Q 'v o c° o, e d a H ). o c a oa d > °c' �> o ,Y ° -roc c-0 a� „� 0 a 4 'L_= -2- �= 3 v O •2�"' 0�� u 0 . c v 0C 03° 0 0•- o c L _ • O ° a (o 8 3 0 ° a�" -,° C A ° • -, c 7 3 ° c O co'.- O ° > >'C•° a a c C O a ° o- o - ° 70 + O...F.,-.E uM o N43a 0 G, ` O 3 d d h-0 `j cL °.8 e. 01 °N O •_°L v • c W L E L O O u•3 tii .12 u 0' -" W -L O_o v c u a •O L 01� °L a 0-v •-c E a•�'. d 1T, 8•E , v 6.a L a W a , C•o w•0' aO K 412 O • ° E , • W a,c�L L v L c a O m c d.0 o_o Q ° Z c E 0 - ., Q• a d j - O E1.2 N C ° 0 N E o0 0,- 0 3 0'� o �.4 a Z c ccr ° ° 3 rno • - - , . v • „ :152.•° CgoE .ia, v3-o " aoOO -c ° E ' ° a000a ' c° E� c ° ?^ c� II • z° c. °v v „-6 0O 9i3-9"-c, °-:17; 8 °13 c Z aOs �- ` E= v ►, v vN_8~ d, Z o ,, ° oL 212g . F a, o ° E' Es Q Oa , v ac•u L Lav EEN 3 oL _ >•u 3 „ o aC o� (9 c C u a v a • E00%.” a = • Fo 2-5'3 u• o`u=� c=o a �� � ° ° o6 �o v c�� a s a� c•E 'o ° „I u o • aJ N O o u u- a c o v • b- °.D C d O 2.2 >._,e `, c, v O C -a °, O.`_, Z— °1 c C J O >. Of c d C, u+ d.- oUa. 4o, u .n_ � °.� V° o °.E.ci °Z� aT° hfl GE°� vu3.� i, o r r • i _ x cc 11.8 Kks V ti lie .0 -. ___....„....=_,.....„•„,. ._._ ... . CITY OF j 0 , _.."-,_ ..„.. ,.......„,,.._tify_ .. CHANHASSEN . . .. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM — TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director — Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: April 10, 1995 SUBJ: Revised Preliminary Plat for Highlands on Lake St. Joe #93-1 SUB — BACKGROUND The Planning Commission originally reviewed this plat in February, 1993. The City Council — gave preliminary plat approval in July, 1993 and final plat approval in October, 1993. Since that time of final plat, staff has been working with the City of Victoria as well as the applicant to resolve a boundary issue that results in the most westerly 110 feet of the plat — (Mr. Boley's property) that falls into the city limits of Victoria. The applicants is requesting to proceed with this plat and has made modifications based on ongoing negotiations with staff and the City of Victoria. The major change to this plat is two additional lots, otherwise the — integrity of the plat remains the same. One is the elimination of a stub street. The original plat included 33 lots and 3 outlots. The revised plat includes 34 lots and 2 outlots. — ANALYSIS When this plat was originally approved it included 33 single family lots and 3 outlots. When — the plat was first submitted in 1993, staff believed that access should be provided to the west which is the Burau and Lano property. Since meeting with the City of Victoria, Victoria has determined that they can serve the Burau and Lano property with their own utilities, therefore, staff finds access from this plat is no longer necessary to service this portion of land. The second change is Lundgren Bros. has acquired the most southerly portion of the Brenda Roy _ property. The property is adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway and includes what was Outlot B. This property acquisition creates one additional lot (Lot 1, Block 3). The other issue with this plat is the creation of a lot that does not meet the frontage requirements. The Roy property is 275' deep and only 75' wide. Staff believes that the applicant is not increasing the non-conformity because the lot is still significantly in excess of the minimum lot size Revised Preliminary Plat Highlands on Lake St. Joe April 10, 1995 — Page 2 requirement. The lot is approximately 20,000 square feet. The other lot that is being created — is 36,200 square feet. Section 20-73 of the zoning ordinance addresses non-conforming lots of record. Section 20-73 (b) states, "No variance shall be given to construct a detached single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot provided that it fronts on a public street or approved — private street and provided that the width and area measurements are at least seventy-five (75) percent of the minimum requirements of this chapter." The subdivision of this lot will not add to its non-conformity. The lot will exceed the 75' requirements. Variances were given on the lot frontage requirements of all riparian lots. The Shoreland _ Regulations require 125 feet of frontage. Staff still supports the findings of the variance of the original staff report. The variance includes Lots 8-11, Block 1. Lots 23, 25 and 27 need to be amended to meet the 90 foot frontage requirement. The setback for Lot 13 shall be measured at the 30 foot setback where the lot meets the 125 foot width. Staff believes that the other issues that were addressed as far as the preliminary and final plat conditions of approval would still remain the same with minor modifications of the — compliance table and would make recommendations as highlighted in this staff report. Also attached is the original preliminary plat memo as well as the conditions of final plat approval. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) since the original plat that — serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In — general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus — concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus — reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Pond 1 and 4 along the wetland adjacent to the lake should be designed for water quality purposes only. According to the SWMP, the wetland will provide storage for the 100-year _ storm. Pond 4 should be setback 10-30 feet from the wetland edge to meet the buffer strip width requirement for a natural wetland. On the other hand, pond 2 and 3 should remain as designed to reduce potential overflows to nearby streets and the City of Victoria. They are — Revised Preliminary Plat Highlands on Lake St. Joe April 10, 1995 Page 3 currently designed to maintain pre-developed runoff rates for a 100-year storm. Outlet — control structures should be used on all ponds as specified in the City's specification book. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of $800/acre for single-family residential developments will be waived since the applicant is providing water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for — runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 36 acres, however, approximately 9.8 acres is wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for 26.2 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of $51,876. Since the applicant is providing 2251.8 cubic yards of excavation above the normal water level in pond 2 and 3 to retain the 100-year storm, a credit of $2.50 per cubic yard or $5630 will be provided. Therefore, a fee of $46,246 will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. SITE GRADING The grading plan proposes grading the majority of the site to develop the streets, house pads and stormwater treatment ponds. The grading limits are right up to the wetland's edge adjacent to Lake St. Joe. Since this wetland is classified as natural, a buffer strip between 10-30 feet wide, averaging 20 feet in width, must be maintained. Therefore, the applicant will have to pull the grading limits back to provide a buffer strip. The proposed stormwater ponds 1 and 4 also encroach upon the buffer strip. These ponding areas will have to be pulled back as well to maintain a buffer strip in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. Revised Preliminary Plat Highlands on Lake St. Joe April 10, 1995 — Page 4 The plans are also providing temporary sediment basins to pretreat surface water runoff — during the construction phase of the development. These temporary basins will be eliminated once the streets are constructed and the permanent ponding facilities are in place. Erosion control measures are being incorporated in the development in general accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. According to the applicant's engineer, the earthwork is proposed to balance on the site and therefore there will be no need to — import/export material from the site. DRAINAGE — The construction plans propose four stormwater treatment ponds designed in accordance with the City 's SWMP. Ponds 1, 3 and 4 will pretreat the stormwater prior to discharging into — Lake St. Joe. Pond No. 2 will pretreat stormwater runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands in the southwest corner of the development. This pond is also being sized to accommodate 100-year flood storage and to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate from the — site. Detailed storm drainage calculations have been provided for this subdivision. Staff has reviewed the storm drainage calculations and finds them acceptable with the exception of the outlet control structures from the proposed pretreatment ponds. The City has recently _ implemented an outlet control structure to provide both a skimming device and a rate control for the pond outlet. These outlet control structures will need to be incorporated into the overall construction plans for the development. UTILITIES The applicant has submitted detailed construction plans and specifications for the previous project. Due to the elimination of the westerly stub street to Victoria, the construction plans will require minor modifications. In addition, the stormwater plans will have to incorporate — the outlet control structures as previously mentioned in this report. Previous construction plans and specifications were developed in accordance with the City's — Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. However, since 1993, the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates have undergone revisions which will need to be incorporated into the new construction plan sets. Therefore it is recommended that the applicant's — engineer work with the City in revising the construction plans and specifications for the project to be in accordance with the City's 1995 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted to the City for review — and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. Revised Preliminary Plat Highlands on Lake St. Joe April 10, 1995 Page 5 STREETS The street system has essentially remained the same with the exception of the westerly stub street into Victoria which has now been deleted and replaced with Lot 17, Block 1. Construction plans for the streets will need to be revised and upgraded to the City's 1995 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted to staff review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final platting. At the end of Ridge Hill Road, a temporary cul-de-sac will need to be constructed within existing right-of-way. Barricades will be placed at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac and a sign indicating that "This street will be extended in the future." Staff will also place this condition within the development contract which is recorded against all the parcels in the _ development. This roadway extension is necessary for the future phase of the development within the city of Victoria. Assessments for the upgraded Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90-15) have recently been discussed. The applicant and staff have reviewed the number of lots and determined that the parcel will be assessed for 35 units at $760 per unit for a total of $26,600. In addition, when the adjacent parcel to the south (future phase) is developed, the city and applicant have determined that 21 units will be assessed at the unit rate and assessed a total of $15,960. Should more lots be created during the platting of the future phase, the assessment will also increase accordingly. To ensure that the future property owners are aware of the Minnewashta Parkway assessments, staff will be placing a condition in the development contract which states that the applicant agrees in writing that the plat should be assessed for the Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade Improvement Project No. 90-15 over the property. Said assessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this contract is signed by the city. The applicant/developer/property owner waives any an all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. The applicant/developer/ property owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minnesota Statute §429.081. Revised Preliminary Plat Highlands on Lake St. Joe April 10, 1995 — Page 6 COMPLIANCE TABLE — BLOCK 1 LOT AREA (Sq.Ft.) Wetland Setback (ft.) (40' plus 10-30' buffer, avg. 20 feet) 1 47,688 60 2 45,500 60 — 3* 30,900 60 — 4 42,000 60 5* 30,700 60 — 6* 28,500 60 7 43,900 60 8** 59,300 60 9** 53,700 60 10** 43,600 60 11** 40,200 60 12 55,400 60 — 13 37,800 60 14 29,600 - 15 23,700 - — 16 21,500 - — 17 19,800 - Revised Preliminary Plat Highlands on Lake St. Joe April 10, 1995 Page 7 18 20,000 - 19 22,100 - 20 34,800 50 (40' plus 0 to 20' buffer - avg. 10') 21 31,600 50 (40' plus 0 to 20' buffer - avg. 10') 22 20,100 - 23*** 21,800 - — 24 22,700 - — 25*** 22,800 - _ 26 22,000 - 27*** 20,100 - * Non riparian lot ** Lot width variance — *** Does not meet width requirement BLOCK 2 LOT AREA (Sq .Ft.) Wetland Setback (ft.) — 1 20,000 2 20,002 3 20,000 4 20,000 5 20,000 6 20,000 Revised Preliminary Plat Highlands on Lake St. Joe April 10, 1995 — Page 8 BLOCK 3 — LOT AREA (Sq.Ft.) Wetland Setback (ft.) 1 36,200 2 20,400 — OUTLOT A 19,400 — OUTLOT B 93,600 RECOMMENDATION — Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Highlands on Lake St. Joe as shown on the plans dated March 23, 1995 prepared by Sathre-Bergquist and _ subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the — necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with — the City's 1995 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Updated construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. — 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. — 4. No grading shall take place within the wetland buffer strips. The plans shall be revised accordingly. — 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's _ Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. Revised Preliminary Plat Highlands on Lake St. Joe April 10, 1995 Page 9 6. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20-foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. — 7. The applicant shall place a sign on barricades at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac on Ridgehill Road indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE." Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each lot. 8. The applicant/developer/property owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade (90-15), including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. The applicant/developer/property owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MS §429.081. Phase I of the development shall be assessed for 35 units and Phase II assessed for 21 units. 9. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations of acceptance of park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication. These fees will be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $900.00 per unit. Full trail dedication fees in lieu of a trail easement. These fees are to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential rate for single family dwellings is $300.00 per unit. 10. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation include permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 11. A buffer strip shall be provided adjacent to all wetlands. The wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe is classified as a natural wetland. The buffer strip width may vary from 10 to 30 feet wide as long as the average buffer strip width is 20 feet. The other wetland is located on Lots 20 and 21, Block 2 and are classified as ag/urban. The buffer strip width may vary from 0 to 20 feet wide as long as the average buffer strip width is 10 feet. 12. Compliance with the Building Official's recommendations. a. Details on corrected pads must be furnished to the Inspection Division. Pads that are corrected at the time streets are installed should be submitted to the Revised Preliminary Plat Highlands on Lake St. Joe April 10, 1995 — Page 10 Inspections Division before City acceptance of the subdivision. Data on lots that are individually corrected shall be submitted before Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Details on corrected pads should include a soils report compaction tests, the limits of the corrected pads and elevation of the — excavation. 13. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11, Block 1. 14. The landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway shall be in compliance with the city's requirements. In addition, the requirement of one tree per lot shall be required. 15. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed at the time of grading within the plat. 16. The applicant work with staff to prepare a revised landscaping plan. Landscaping needs to be added to provide screening from views on Minnewashta Parkway across — from Lake St. Joe to soften the view from the homes. 17. The applicant will be responsible for a storm water quantity connection charge of — $46,246. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat." ATTACHMENTS _ 1. Letter from Michael Pflaum dated March 14, 1995. 2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated April 10, 1995. — 3. Letter from DNR dated December 19, 1994. 4. Public hearing notice and property owner list. 5. Staff report dated February 3, 1993. — 6. Preliminary plat dated March 28, 1995. - LUF1DGREff BROS. March 14, 1995 CONSTRUCTION INC Ms. Kate Aanenson Chanhassen Planning Director 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 935 E.Wayzata Blvd. Re: Highlands on Lake St. Joe - Incorporation of Roy Property Wayzata Minnesota 55391 Dear Kate: (612)473-1231 Attached is the survey of the Roy Property which you requested. If you have not yet received a 500' radius ownership list, you soon should. I instructed Carver County Abstract to mail this list directly to you. Please advise me as soon as possible of the most expeditious route to merging this property with Highlands, and of any additional materials you will need. I appreciate your assistance. Very truly yours, LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC. l / -� Michael A. Pflaum enclosure RECEIVED MAR ( 1995 CITY.Of ChMty-ir►:>SEN „, tsCITYOF _ . 4 ,!,40,„ EN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official )( _ CA-1 . — DATE: April 10, 1995 — SUBJECT: 93-1 SUB (Highlands on Lake St. Joe, Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.) I was as asked to review the subdivision proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, - RECEIVED, MAR 28 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. ” for the above referenced project. Analysis: Soils Report. A soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. _ 1. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of — any building permits. g:kafety\sakOrnemos'plan\6ighindka 1 44+ Ye.cXt STATE OF eg P A' - it - DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES f], '. WATERS - 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55155-4032 t. PHONE NO. (612) 296-4800 FILE NO Ci --,1„)1A December 19, 1994 The Honorable Don Chmiel Mayor, City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317-0147 Dear Mayor Chmiel : APPROVAL OF CHANHASSEN'S SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Thank you for submitting your city's request for flexibility from the statewide shoreland rules and your community' s amended shoreland management controls (which were adopted August 22 , 1994) _ for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) review. I will address the flexibility request first. Your city staff presented memoranda which requested flexibility from statewide standards in the following areas: 1. Lot Size and Width for Nonriparian Lots in Natural Environment Shoreland Districts - 15, 000 square foot lots (versus 20, 000 square feet in statewide standards) and 90 foot lot width (versus 125 feet in statewide standards) . 2 . Building Height - 35 feet (versus 25 feet in statewide standards) . 3 . Impervious Surface - 35 percent impervious cover limit in medium and high density residential zones and 70 percent impervious cover limit for industrial land within the shoreland district of Lake Susan (versus 25 percent impervious cover limit in statewide standards) . The city's letters and attached materials adequately describe those situations and justifies its request. I am hereby fully approving the city's request for flexibility. I also am informing you that the city's land use controls fully comply with Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120. 2500 - 6120 . 3900, and are hereby approved. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The Honorable Don Chmiel Approval of Chanhassen's Shoreland Controls Page 2 We remain available to assist the city with implementation and enforcement of the ordinance. As required by the ordinance, notices of all hearings and notices of decisions for variances, conditional uses, and amendments in shoreland areas must be submitted to the Department. These should be sent directly to Area Hydrologist Ceil Strauss at the following address: DNR - Division of Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 . I wish to congratulate you for the efforts of the city council, planning commission, staff, and local citizens have taken towards protecting the water resources of Chanhassen and the State of Minnesota through the adoption of its land use controls which include the statewide shoreland management standards. Sincerely, DIVISION OF WATERS tANy‘ O•,:. zgh iu , Supervisor Land Use Management Unit OS/CCS c: Dale Homuth, Regional Hydrologist Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Diane Desotelle, Chanhassen Water Resources Coordinator Pam Albrecht, Division Accountant 1:t I 1 1.:r_i.7__Aph,;:. '. : ....s. ` I .. _ , 1.the 1:e.,' ?: --'.‘".1. 1 irl;ini.r %j �' ..:, ffff LaA!' l Lake NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ` «` .... ;1Ms.o.,•,..0.I.h1. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . C": ___ _ �- _ .� "." U.."' l-1 I Heriot,,, 1 Ki— iii;ui. :,.r. — Wednesday, APRIL 19, 1995 .% ......-\ ) . 7:00 P.M. ti•.••••••172_,.2 City Hall Council Chambers <-_-.) �ti�` if y ,_ ,_.. SIT 690 Coulter Drive `�. " ? ti.; s�.._..,. o i'. .'k c---\, (i — Project: Highlands at Lake St. Joe r An...bl"1. VICTORIA •; Developer: Lundgren Bros. Construction - • -- _ -- -- - - ----- i�� , 74----77-- - :k - CKij'J. ' Hi-kSSE • • Location: West of Minnewashta 1 ; — Parkway, south of Lake St. \ ' Joe and north of Hwy. 5 i'"T "' 1 sT_= '''�'4"� =-ms;:- - i ; 'N'\'\� ,• i I • "' r11r c,:A I _ Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Lundgren Bros. Construction proposes to preliminary plat 36 acres of property into 35 single family lots, Highlands at Lake St. Joe, located on property zoned RSF, _ Residential Single Family and located on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway, north of Hwy. 5 and south of Lake St. Joe. — What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing — through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. — 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. _ Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900 ext. 118. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 6, 1995.. 1 C S ' �� 7 1 ousd Daniel and Brenda Roy Timothy and Lisa Braff 7400 Minnewashta Ploy. 7410 Minnewashta Ploy. Lynn&Kae Hall Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 3980 Hawthorne Circle Excelsior,MN 55331 Jerry and K. Kortgard Terrance W. Rixe David&Lori Free 3901 Glendale Drive 7456 Minnewashta Pkwy. 3921 Maple Shores Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Mark and Donna Malinowski Jerome Tschimperle Timothy&Laurie Jenzer 7250 Minnewashta Pkwy, 1 8121 Bavaria Road 3920 Maple Shores Drive Excelsior,MN 55331 Victoria,MN 55386 Excelsior,MN 55331 Stephen&Sandra Bainbridge David and M. Boorsma Thomas&Sandra Giessen 7351 Minnewashta Ploy. 185 Arboretum Boulevard 3930 Maple Shores Drive Excelsior,MN 55331 Chaska,MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331 James and Frances Borchart Bryan&Melia Pike Propertele,Inc. 7331 Minnewashta Pkwy. 7411 Minnewashta Pkwy. do Ellie Schwaba _ Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 3603 Red Cedar Point Exzcelsior,MN 55331 Susan L. Jasin Oscar Anderson Robert& Shelly Lenzen 7301 Minnewashta Pkwy. 7115 Kings Road 2463 Minnewashta Pkwy. Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 — Alec D. Wilson Leo Janus Mark C. Robinson 4030 Kings Road 3980 Hawthorne Circle73.71 Minnewashta Pkwy. Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 �' Excelsior,MN 55331 • Mitchell&Brenda Miller Edward&Judith Oathout Kenneth&K. Steinmetz _ 7200 Kings Road 3940 Hawthorne Circle 3931 Minnewashta Ct. Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Jerold&Jeanette Boley John&Marianne Merz David&M.A. Tester 7414 Minnewashta Pkwy, 3900 Lone Cedar Circle 3897 Lone Cedar Lane Excelsior,MN 55331 Chaska,MN 55318 Chaska,MN 55318 Joyce A Burau and David& Sally Peterjohn Michael Cornelison Joanne M. Lano 3921 Hawthorne Circle 7512 77th Street W 1225 78th Street Excelsior,MN 55331 Chaska, NN 55318 — Victoria, MN 55386 Wilmer &M. Larson Craig&Pamela Lamb 7380 Minnewashta Pkwy. 7514 77th Street Excelsior,MN 55331 Chaska,MN 55318 Levin Seacer John&Verna Peterjohn 3510 77th Street_ 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MV 55318 Chaska,MN 55318 . Joseph&Paula Epping Nelson&Susan Odt 7508 77th Street W 7518 77th Street - Chaska,MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Robert&Faye Corson Peter&Linda Fichuk 7504 77th Strete W 7513 77th Street Chaska,MN 55318 Chaska,MN 55318 Verona C. Gordon Dennis&Ronda Zattera 7511 77th Street 7515 77th Street W Chaska,MN 55318 P. (1 Box 190 Victoria,MN 55386 David&Amy Busch Geoffrey& S. Schiefelbein - 7509 77th Street 3920 Hawthorne Circle Chaska,MN 55318 Excelsior,MN 55331 Craig&Vicky Anderson David&Diane Zamjahn 7507 77th Street 7506 77th Street - Chaska,MN 55318 Chaska,MN 55318 Don and Bonnie Holman 3887 Forest Ridge Circle Chaska,MN 55318 — Willard&Rhoda Anenson 3885 Forest Ridge Circle Chaska,MN 55318 - Gregory W. Bernhardt 3883 Forest Ridge Circle Chaska,MN 55318 Kenneth & Gladys Bloomquist Mark C. Robinson & Trolls Glen Homeowners Assoc. _ 3900 Minnewashta Ct. Connie McCarthy Robinson P.O. Box 103 Excelsior, MN 55331 3921 Minnewashta Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 State of MN in Trust Edward Monser & Timothy Vobeck c% Carver Co. Auditor Kathryn Howard 7510 77th Street W. — 600 East 4th Street 3920 Hawthorne Cir Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331 Karen Peterjohn Also see file for extra names 123 Waters Edge Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 4 CITY of :i. 0 CHANHASSEN ii, . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 •• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _ s o (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • " MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager _ FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: October 15, 1993 SUBJ: Final Plat for Highlands on Lake St. Joe — Sub # 93-1 — On July 12, 1993, the City Council approved the amended preliminary plat #93-1 for the subdivision of the Boley property with the following conditions: — 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. — 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10-year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration, and will discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100-year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe _ which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. Bonestroo has determined that the 100 year flood elevation is 947.0. Staff is working with the Watershed District to resolve where the 100 year flood elevation is located. The applicant's — engineer shall review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may Highlands at Lake St. Joe October 15, 1993 Page 2 — be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Mr. Ismael Martinez, is outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases — where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 6. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20- foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. 7. The applicant shall place a sign on barricades at the end of the southerly and westerly — street extension into the city of Victoria indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE." Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain-of- title of each lot. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other, _. 8. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90-15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. — 9. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. 10. Compliance with the city's wetland regulations including permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. 11 Compliance with the Building Official's recommendations. 12. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1, for the following reasons: a. All lots abutting Lake St. Joe meet the 125 foot lot width, only lots not adjacent to the lake are recommended for a variance. Highlands at Lake St. Joe October 15, 1993 Page 3 b. Requirement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement will not affect the density of the project. c. The MnDNR's shoreland regulations regarding lot widths on non-riparian are inappropriate when applied within the metro area. 13. Compliance with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway and the requirement of one tree per lot. 14. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed. 15. The lots which are partially in the city of Victoria shall be platted last in order for the two cities to work out an annexation-detachment agreement. If no agreement can be made between the cities, "The Declaration of Rear Yard Easements," drafted by the applicant's attorney and approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the subdivision, apprising homeowners of the city limits and restrictions to its use." FINAL PLAT REQUEST Lundgren Brothers is requesting final plat approval for 24 lots and 5 outlots for the Highlands on Lake St. Joe subdivision. Outlot A is proposed for a storm water pond, Outlot B is unbuildable at this time because it does not meet the minimum square footage requirements. Outlot C is on the southern property limits and will more than likely be accessed via a street from Victoria. Outlots D and E are partially located in the City of Victoria. This area was recommended to be platted last so that the cities of Chanhassen and Victoria could discuss annexation/deannexation issues. The entire subdivision falls within the jurisdiction of the DNR Shoreland regulation for Natural Environmental Lakes. A city classified natural wetland also exists around Lake St. Joe. The City Council had recommended variances to the shoreland regulations for the lot width requirements for non-riparian lots. All of the 24 lots proposed meet the development standards of the RSF district. COMPLIANCE TABLE BLOCK 1 LOT AREA (Sq.Ft.) Wetland Setback (ft.) (40' plus 10-30' buffer, avg. 20 feet) 1 47,700 60 2 45,500 60 Highlands at Lake St. Joe October 15, 1993 Page 4 — 3 30,897 60 4 42,000 60 — 5 30,704 60 6 28,553 60 — 7 43,900 60 8 59,300 60 9 53,700 60 — 10 43,600 60 11 40,200 60 12 55,400 60 — BLOCK 2 LOT AREA (Sq .Ft.) Wetland Setback (ft.) -- 1 20,001 2 20,002 3 20,009 — 4 20,006 5 20,011 6 20,014 —. Highlands at Lake St. Joe October 15, 1993 Page 5 BLOCK 3 LOT AREA (Sq.Ft.) Wetland Setback (ft.) 1 20,098 2 21,982 — 3 22,777 4 22,658 5 21,813 6 20,083 50 (40' plus 0 to 20' buffer, avg, 10') — OUTLOT A 18,927 OUTLOT B 17,151 OUTLOT C 81,844 — OUTLOT D 70,682 OUTLOT E 70,579 UTILITIES The applicant has submitted detailed construction plans and specifications for the project. Staff has reviewed the plans and specifications and find that they meet city standards with some minor adjustments which will be worked out between the applicant's engineer and city staff. One of those items was to extend a water line on Knollwood Trail to the west edge of the plat for future connection with the city of Victoria. SITE GRADING The applicant is desiring to perform some of the site grading yet this fall/early winter contingent upon weather conditions. Staff is comfortable with the idea since the applicant will be concentrating on developing the temporary sediment basins as well as the permanent NURP basins adjacent to Lake St. Joe in the initial site grading. Erosion control measures Highlands at Lake St. Joe October 15, 1993 Page 6 are proposed adjacent to the wetlands in accordance with the city's Best Management Practices Handbook. Staff is comfortable in recommending approval of the site grading — aspect of the project prior to the plat being recorded at the county conditioned upon the applicant entering into the development contract and supplying the city with the necessary letter of credit in the amount of $225,000 to guarantee erosion control and site restoration. According to the applicant's engineer, the earthwork material will balance on the site and therefore there will be no need to import or export material from the site. However, should there be an error in the earthwork calculations and additional material needs to be removed, the applicant shall work with staff in coordinating an approved haul route. Staff previously pointed out a discrepancy in the 100 year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe — between the Watershed District's 509 Plan and the city's storm water management consultant, Bonestroo. To date, this still has not been resolved between the two agencies, however, the applicant is not grading below the city's calculated 100 year flood elevations of 94%for Lake St. Joe. Therefore this elevation discrepancy should be verified with the Watershed District prior to site grading. Staff will be sending the Watershed District a copy of the city's stormwater management plan for review. EROSION CONTROL The applicant is providing erosion control measures in accordance with the city's Best Management Practices Handbook. Staff does recommend additional Type I erosion control fence be extended along the downstream side of the grading limits for Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 1. STREETS The street system is fairly straight forward due to the topographic constraints such as the — wetlands, limited size of the parcels, some of the street curves do not meet a 30 m.p.h. design standard and, therefore, the appropriate speed advisatory signs will have to be installed. The applicant is providing two street accesses to connect into the city of Victoria. The southerly — street (Ridge Hill Road) will provide an access for a future phase of this development which in turn will most likely route back to Minnewashta Parkway. The other access would be via Knollwood Trail which is on the west side of the plat. This location will be conducive for future extension through the city of Victoria. For both of these dead end streets, staff will be requiring that the traffic barricades be placed as well as a sign indicating the street will be extended in the future. Staff will also place this condition within the development contract which is recorded against the development. Assessments for the upgraded Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90-15) have recently been discussed. The applicant and staff have reviewed the number of lots and determined that the parcel will be assessed for 35 units at $760 per unit for a total of _ Highlands at Lake St. Joe October 15, 1993 Page 7 $26,600. In addition, when the adjacent parcel to the south (future phase) is developed, the city and applicant have determined that 21 units will be assessed at the unit rate and assessed a total of $15,960. Should during the platting of the future phase more lots are created, the assessment will also increase accordingly. To ensure that the future property owners are aware of the Minnewashta Parkway assessments, staff will be placing a condition in the development contract which states that the applicant agrees in writing that the plat should be assessed for the Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade Improvement Project No. 90-15 over the property. Said assessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this contract is signed by the city. The applicant/developer/property owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. The applicant/developer/ property owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MS §429.081. DRAINAGE The construction plans for the development is providing necessary storm water drainage systems and NURP basins to treat the storm water prior to discharging into Lake St. Joe in — accordance with the city's Best Management Practices Handbook. The plans have combined a couple of the retention basins as previously requested by staff. Staff finds that the drainage plan overall is acceptable and in general conformance with city standards. However, there are — two areas where there are two low points of the street on Lake Ridge Road. Staff requests that the low points be adjusted so that they are on the common lot lines and provide an emergency overflow access should the catch basins become obstructed in any fashion. These — two areas are on Lake Ridge Road between Lots 9 and 10, Block 1 as well as Lots 4 and 5, Block 1. Staff has discussed this with the applicant's engineer and there appears to be no problem in resolving this issue. SUBDIVISION Following are the conditions of approval for the preliminary plat. and whether or not they have been meet. 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. This condition is still applicable. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review _ and formal approval by the City Council. Highlands at Lake St. Joe October 15, 1993 Page 8 — The applicant has submitted detailed plans and specifications to staff for review and approval. The plans and specifications are in general conformance to city standards, however, some minor adjustments are pending. Therefore, this condition is still applicable. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. This condition is still applicable. 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer — calculations designed for a 10-year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration, and will discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100-year flood elevation _ of Lake St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. Bonestroo has determined that the 100 year flood elevation is 947.0. Staff is working with the Watershed District to resolve where the 100 year flood elevation is located. The applicant's engineer shall review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either _ outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Mr. Ismael Martinez, is outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. This condition has been partially met. Staff has not resolved the 100 year flood elevation with the Watershed District. However, since the applicant is not proposing to fill below the city's 100 year flood elevation, this discrepancy should be resolved prior to site grading. - 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III — erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site — grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site — to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. Highlands at Lake St. Joe October 15, 1993 Page 9 This condition is being met but a portion of this condition shall remain. 6. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20-foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. A portion of this condition is being met. The access points to the NURP basins are 3:1 slopes. The slopes should be modified to 4:1. 7. The applicant shall place a sign on barricades at the end of the southerly and westerly street extension into the city of Victoria indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE." Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each lot. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. This condition is still applicable. 8. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90- 15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the — development. This condition has been modified. Staff has been working with the applicant to — resolve the number of assessable units. The applicant and staff have determined 35 units shall be assessed against this phase of the development and 21 units on the future development to the south. 9. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. — The City Council recommended acceptance of park fees in lieu of land dedication. These fees will be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $500.00 per unit. The City Council also recommended that full trail dedication fees be paid in lieu of a trail easement. These fees are to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current r residential rate for single family dwellings is $167.00 per unit. 10. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. Highlands at Lake St. Joe October 15, 1993 Page 10 a. The wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe requires a 60 foot setback from the edge of a wetland with a 20 foot buffer strip. This buffer strip may average 10-30 feet. b. The other wetland is located in Outlot D and Lot 6 Block 3. The city has classified this wetland as Ag/Urban. The setback of 50 feet must be maintained, with the 10 feet adjacent to the wetland being a landscape buffer. The buffer strip shall be identified by permanent monumentation approved and accepted by the city. 11. Compliance with the Building Official's recommendations. a. The street names have been approved. b. Details on corrected pads must be furnished to the Inspection Division. Pads that are corrected at the time streets are installed should be submitted to the Inspections Division before City acceptance of the subdivision. Data on lots that are individually corrected shall be submitted before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Details on corrected pads should include a soils report compaction tests, the limits of the corrected pads and elevation of the excavation. c. A 5 foot drainage easement with a drainage swale between shall be required at each side of the property line where the lots have narrow street frontages. This condition has been met. d. Indicate proposed dwelling type using standard designations along with lowest floor elevation. This condition has been met. — 12. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1, for the following reasons: (Lots in the final plat given variances are Lots 1, 3, 5 and 6, Block 3 and Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 1). a. All lots abutting Lake St. Joe meet the 125 foot lot width, only lots not adjacent to the lake are recommended for a variance. b. Requirement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement will not affect the density of the project, c. The MnDNR's shoreland regulations regarding lot widths on non riparian are inappropriate when applied within the metro area. Highlands at Lake St. Joe October 15, 1993 Page 11 13. Compliance with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway and the requirement of one tree per lot. This condition has been met. A landscaping plan has been provided showing streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway and one tree per lot. 14. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed. This condition is still applicable. 15. The lots which are partially in the city of Victoria shall be platted last in order for the two cities to work out an annexation-detachment agreement. If no agreement can be made between the cities, The Declaration of Rear Yard Easements, drafted by the applicant's attorney and approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the subdivision, apprising homeowners of the city limits and restrictions to its use." This condition has been met. These 8 lots have been designated as Outlots D and E and will be platted at a later date. — RECOMMENDATION "The City Council approves the final plat for the Highlands at Lake St. Joe #93-1 including 24 lots and 5 outlots, as shown on the plans dated October 1, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. 4. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100-year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. All access Highlands at Lake St. Joe October 15, 1993 Page 12 — points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 6. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20-foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance — purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. 7. The applicant shall place a sign on barricades at the end of the southerly and westerly street extension into the city of Victoria indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE." Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each lot. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. 8. A condition shall be placed in the development contract which states that the applicant agrees in writing that the plat should be assessed for the Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade Improvement Project No. 90-15 over the property. Said assessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this contract is signed by the city. The applicant/developer/property owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. The applicant/developer/property owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available — pursuant to MS §429.081. 9. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations of acceptance of park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication. These fees will be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $500.00 per unit. Full trail — dedication fees in lieu of a trail easement. These fees are to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential rate for single family dwellings is $167.00 per unit. 10. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. a. The wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe, a natural wetland requires a 60 foot setback from the edge of a wetland with a 20 foot buffer strip. This buffer strip may average 10-30 feet. b. The other wetland is located in Outlot D and Lot 6, Block 3. The city has Highlands at Lake St. Joe October 15, 1993 Page 13 classified this wetland as Ag/Urban. The setback of 50 feet must be maintained, with the 10 feet adjacent to the wetland being a landscape buffer. The buffer strip shall be identified by permanent monumentation approved and accepted by the city. 11. Compliance with the Building Official's recommendations. a. Details on corrected pads must be furnished to the Inspection Division. Pads that are corrected at the time streets are installed should be submitted to the Inspections Division before City acceptance of the subdivision. Data on lots that are individually corrected shall be submitted before Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Details on corrected pads should include a soils report compaction tests, the limits of the corrected pads and elevation of the excavation. 12. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 1, 3, 5 and 6, Block 3 and Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 1. 13. Compliance with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway and the requirement of one tree per lot. 14. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed. — 15. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8" water line on Knollwood Trail for future service into the city of Victoria. — 16. The grading plan shall be revised to extend Type I erosion control fence on the downstream side of the grading limits along Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 1. — 17. On Lake Ridge Road, the two "low points" shall be adjusted so that they are on the common lot lines and provide an emergency overflow swale. The two areas are on Lake Ridge Road between Lots 9 and 10, Block 1 as well as Lots 4 and 5, Block 1. 18. Site grading may proceed prior to recording of the final plat contingent upon the applicant entering into a development contract with the city and provide the city with a financial security in the amount of $225,000 to guarantee erosion control measures, site restoration and grading." Attachments 1. City Council minutes dated July 12, 1993. 2. Final Plat and Landscaping plans dated October 1, 1993. C I T Y O F ' DATE: 2/3/93 g \ ' • '1 C CC DATE: 2/22/93 CASE #: 93-1 SUB '� By: Aanenson/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivide 36 Acres into 33 Single Family Lots with 3 Outlots 1 (Boley Property) Z . / Pr I V - -- -_ 5 LOCATION: 7340 Minnewashta Parkway _-, ..117:i .1:- r-i-G.3_,n, °— - - - 1 APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction 4 935 East Wayzata Boulevard - ` "f1-' Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family L. ACREAGE: 36 acres I DENSITY: gross .91 u/a net 1.37 u/a ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; single family S - Victoria - residential E - RSF; single family QW - Victoria - residential Q . WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Rolling terrain, Lake St. Joe is in the northern portion of the subdivision. There is a wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe and another wetland found in the southwest corner of the site 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Brothers Development, is requesting subdivision approval for 33 single family homes. This property is 36 acres and is currently zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. This property is a part of a larger piece of property owned by Howard Boley. The southern portion of Mr. Boley's property is located in Victoria. The applicant has ghost platted this property to show how this property could be developed. Approval of this subdivision is required by the City of Victoria. This proposal has a gross density of .91 units an acre and 1.37 units an acre net, this includes 11.54 acres of wetland and .4 acres of road. Lake St. Joe borders the northern portion of the — subdivision, this lake has a substantial wetland area around it. The city has classified this wetland as a natural wetland. The other wetland on the property was not reviewed as a part of the city's wetland inventory. The analysis of this wetland needs to occur before the plat receives final approval. This property is being proposed for development under the standard subdivision review process; the property is currently zoned RSF. Lake St. Joe, which is on the northern portion of the subdivision, calls for compliance with the shoreland regulations. There is a wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe which is in the southwest corner of the site. Compliance with the wetland regulations is also required. Assess to this site is from Minnewashta Parkway. The orientation of the subdivision is towards Chanhassen, mainly because access is gained only through Chanhassen. At this time, access to Victoria is proposed via a stub street to the south. The westerly edge of this subdivision is in the city of Victoria. The city limit is located at the most westerly 90 feet of the subdivision running the length of the plat of 1315 feet. Approval of the subdivision is therefore required by the City of Victoria, before the city can grant final approval. The staff feels that this subdivision is well conceived, but the issue of Victoria's jurisdiction over part of the site raises some concern if they are unwilling to approve it. The subdivision as proposed meets all of the standards of the RSF zone. The applicants are requesting variances — from the lot width requirements of the Shoreland Regulations. SITE ANALYSIS There is an existing home on the property, the Howard Boley residence. This home will have to be removed with the development of the subdivision. There are three existing homes just to south of the subdivision. The homes are exempted from the subdivision. Further south along Minnewashta Parkway is the Alt property which has horses and a stable on it. This property is also an exemption. All of these properties are in the city of Victoria. Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 3 — This site has a rolling topography, the high point is over 1000 feet, where you can see all the way to Lake Minnetonka. The lowest elevation is the ordinary high water mark at 945.2'. The site has three areas of trees. It appears that the trees are on Lots 4, 5, and part of 6, Block 1 which will be lost due to grading of the site. The other groups of trees on the site including Lots 1, 12, 13, and 10-25, Block 1 should submit a home placement plans showing the existing trees and how they will be saved. Staff believes that except for Lots 12 and 13 there should be minimal tree loss. This proposal calls for grading the high point of the Block 2 area and placing this fill in the — Block 1 area of Lots 2-9. At first blush, staff had some concern about fill being placed so close to the edge of the wetland at the 950' elevation. Upon further investigation is was determined that the site has been farmed right up to the edge of the wetland. In order for the home along _ the north portion of the site adjacent to the wetland to remain above the grade of the street, fill is required in this area. The developer has shown a cross section of how this lot would look, and this proposal shows an approximate 1% grade from the home to the street (see Attachment #4). — Staff believes that it is desirable to have the homes above the street grade to provide lot drainage to the street so storm water can be pre-treated before entering the wetlands. Outlot C is not being platted at this time. The ghost plat for the southern portion of the site shows Outlot C being platted via a road from the city of Victoria. Staff believes that this makes good planning sense because this area is the high point of the property and access from the south _ will minimize grading and tree loss. There are four storm water retention ponds proposed for the subdivision. They are located on — Outlots A and B and on Lots 12, 13, 22, and 23 of Block 1. Access to the ponds will be gained from the road on Outlots A and B but an easement will be required for access for the other two ponds. A stone wall is shown between the ponds on Outlots A and B. More design details about — the wall are required before it can be built. Streetscape is also required along Minnewashta Parkway as per the Landscaping Ordinance. Victoria City Line The westerly 90 feet of this subdivision is in the city of Victoria. Prior to final approval of this — subdivision, approval by the city of Victoria is required. The property in Victoria is a strip of 90 feet wide and 1315.16 feet long. The Boley property is also divided north and south between the city of Victoria and Chanhassen. A ghost plat was shown as to how this property in Victoria could be developed. Topography, access and availability of utilities dictate that this area be serviced by Chanhassen. The applicant would like the city to consider annexation of this area. _ City staff believes this is a reasonable outcome. Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 4 On Friday, January 22, 1993, Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson and myself met with the Victoria City Manager Miriam Porter and City Planner Bill Thilbalt regarding the development of the Boley property. Victoria's preference is to have the subdivision moved to the east so that the city lines do not dissect the lots. While the city lines divide Lots 13 through 21, Block 1, the homes as proposed on the home placement are shown in the City of Chanhassen. Leaving this narrow strip would provide an unbuildable lot with no access to it. Providing a stub street to the west from this subdivision should be considered. Victoria needs to make comprehensive study as to how this area can be served. Chanhassen will be working with Victoria to resolve this issue. Currently, there are four homes and a church on the east side of Minnewashta Parkway that are in the city of Victoria but have Chanhassen services. These homes are part of the Trolls Glen 3rd Addition and the church is part of the Cedar Crest Subdivision. Circumstances like this where properties are in other cities and yet serviced by Chanhassen exist elsewhere through the city. In similar circumstances, the city has worked on a service agreement with the appropriate jurisdiction. However, no such agreement exists for these parcels and they too have no physical connection to Victoria in any substantive manner. Staff is recommending that the portion of this subdivision that is in Victoria be platted and not left as a lot remanent. Shoreland Regulations Lake St. Joe is classified by the DNR as a Natural Environment Lake. Compliance with the shoreland regulations includes all property within 1000 feet of the shoreline. In the case the entire this subdivision, falls within 1000 feet of the lake. The minimum standards are as follows: LAKESHORE NON-LAKESHORE LOT WIDTH LOT AREA STRUCTURE IMPACT LOT WIDTH LOT (sq. ft.) ZONE AREA 125 feet 40,000 150 feet 75 feet 125 feet 20,000 All of the lots abutting the lake meet the 40,000 square foot minimum requirement. The remaining lots meet the 20,000 square foot minimum. Not all of the lots meet the 125 foot lot width requirement. Staff has measured the setback from 30 feet back line and found that the total number of lots that are under the 125 minimum is 12. Staff is recommending that variances be given on these lots (Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1). The intent of the shoreland regulations is to minimize the shoreland impact. Staff is of the opinion that making the lots conform to the 125 foot lot width will not affect the density of the project. In addition, 12 of the lots that do not meet the lot width requirements are not adjacent to the lake. We note that this is a problem that directly stems from the MnDNR's Shoreland Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 5 — Regulations that we intend to rectify with a revised ordinance. It was drafted to cover the entire state and is very inappropriate in the metro area. For example, much of south Minneapolis is — located within the shoreland districts surrounding Lakes Calhoun, Harriet, Isles and Nokomis. Obviously, this is inconsistent with the state guidelines. In past discussions with the DNR, they have agreed that the manner in which we propose to regulate the shoreland on the Boley parcel is acceptable. Wetland Regulations — There are two wetlands on the property. One wetland is adjacent to Lake St. Joe and the other is in the southwest corner of the proposed plat. The Lake St. Joe wetland was inventoried this summer and was determined to have a natural classification as per the city's new Wetland Ordinance (see attachment #3). This development proposes 13 lots adjacent to the Lake St. Joe wetland. The setback requirement for a natural classification wetland is 40 feet plus an additional 10 to 30 feet (20' average) native vegetation _ strip. Lots 1-13 in Block 1 all meet the wetland setback requirement (see attached compliance table). The Wetland Ordinance also states that a monument is required for each 300 feet of wetland edge. One concern of the staff is the amount of fill being proposed adjacent to the wetland. Fill is proposed at a 3:1 slope which is fairly steep immediately adjacent to the wetland. The area — adjacent to the wetland has been farmed in the past so there is no native vegetation established, staff's main concern is erosion control. Staff is recommending that the Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook be used to ensure erosion control — measures are taken. Also see the grading section for more discussion of this issue. The second wetland is found in the northwest corner of the property. This is a very small part — of a very large wetland that is adjacent to Tamarack Lake. This wetland was not identified during the inventory this past summer. Ron Peterson, a wetland specialist working for Lundgren Brothers, felt that although this wetland has been altered, the property to the west is used for cattle grazing and a road has been built through the wetland, it could be improved. Regardless of the function at this point the homes on Lots 20 and 21, Block 1 propose a 120 foot and 80 foot setback from the edge of the wetland. Even if this wetland is determined to be classified as a natural or ag/urban, adequate buffering is being provided. An inventory of this wetland is necessary to determine the amount of buffer strip and native vegetation required before this plat is given final approval. — The city has not yet established a species list for the re-establishment of native vegetation but will have to do so before this plat can be given final approval. Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 6 GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of generally rolling terrain devoid of trees/wooded areas except for a few areas along Lake St. Joe. The property is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. The preliminary grading plan proposes extensive site grading to accommodate proposed building house pads and maintaining street grades within the City's guidelines (0.50% to 7.0%). According to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's 509 Plan, the 100-year flood elevation for Lake St. Joe is at 949.5'. Fill placement proposed along Lots 6 through 9, Block 1, appears to be encroaching into the Watershed District's 100-year flood boundary. Placement of fill material on these lots should be limited to areas outside the 100-year flood boundary. Side slopes adjacent to Lake St. Joe are proposed at 3:1 which are fairly steep but not excessive. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts should follow the City's recently adopted Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (BMPH). Type Ill erosion control fence should be employed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In some instances where side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed 200 feet upstream of the toe of slope. All access points from the construction site should be surfaced and maintained with a crushed rock base in accordance with the City's BMPH (Attachment No. 1). Storm water runoff from the development is proposed to maintain the existing drainage pattern. The majority of the overall site drains towards Lake St. Joe. The southwesterly corner of the property drains westerly towards a wetland basin in Victoria. The majority of the storm water generated from the development is proposed to be carried via storm sewer system and discharged into water treatment/retention ponds prior to discharging into Lake St. Joe or the wetlands in — Victoria. Mr. Ismael Martinez with the City's storm water consultant, Bonestroo and Associates, has reviewed this development proposal and has recommended minimum ponding capacities and characteristics for the proposed water quality ponds (Attachment No. 2). In an effort to help reduce future City maintenance of these water quality ponds, staff recommends the applicant look at consolidating the ponds proposed on Outlots A and B; either on one of the outlots or on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, outside the wetlands. Prior to final plat approval, detailed storm sewer and ponding design calculations shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. The storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. The ponding areas shall meet or exceed the City's water quality standards (NURP) and retention requirements for a 100-year, 24-hour storm _ event. Discharge from the site shall be maintained at predeveloped runoff conditions. Access to the water quality/retention ponds for maintenance purposes shall be provided by an easement dedicated on the final plat. All easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Side slopes on the maintenance access routes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slope. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. Upon final construction plan submittal, a development plan shall be included on the final grading plan denoting the house type and proposed lowest floor and garage slab elevations. In addition, all Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 7 — proposed lot corner elevations shall be shown. Plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. — UTILITIES The plans propose extending municipal utilities from Minnewashta Parkway into the site. Municipal sanitary sewer and water lines in Minnewashta Parkway are adequately sized to accommodate this development proposal. The applicant's engineer has also designed the utilities — to serve a future phase to the south which is in the City of Victoria. Final placement of fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Construction of all municipal utilities shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and final approval by the City Council. STREETS The street plans propose on extending a public street westerly from Minnewashta Parkway just south of Minnewashta Court. A public street extension is also proposed to the south for future service to Victoria which will eventually loop back into Minnewashta Parkway. Sight lines at the proposed intersection is fairly good considering the speed limit on Minnewashta Parkway. Although a future or concept looped street to the south through Victoria and back out to Minnewashta Parkway with the next phase will have to be carefully studied. Sight lines are poor — due to roadway geometrics on Minnewashta Parkway. Ideally, future street extensions through Victoria should line up perpendicular to Minnewashta Parkway preferably across from one of the existing intersections at either Hawthorne Circle or 77th Street. A sign indicating "THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" should be placed on one of the barricades at the end of the proposed south street. The applicant and staff from both Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for a future street extension to the west to Victoria — through this phase or the next phase. With the topographic constraints around this parcel, it may not be feasible; however, it should still be reviewed. Street grades proposed are between 0.75% and 6.0% which are within the City's current standards. The applicant has proposed a 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 31-foot wide street (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) which is also within the City's guidelines. All street intersections — should be perpendicular to each other. The second intersection in from Minnewashta Parkway, at the loop, needs some minor adjusting to accomplish this. Construction of the public street improvements shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail — Plates. Detailed street construction plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. As you are aware, the City is currently undergoing an improvement project to upgrade Minnewashta Parkway (Project No. 90-15). The Minnewashta Parkway project proposes to assess — Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 8 this parcel a portion of the project costs. The feasibility study for the Minnewashta Parkway project estimated 39 assessable units for this parcel. The City Council approved a rate per unit of $760 and equates to a pending assessment of $29,640. The assessment hearing for the Minnewashta Parkway project is not proposed until early fall of 1993. COMPLIANCE TABLE See Attachment# 1 PARK AND RECREATION The Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the application by Lundgren Brothers Construction to subdivide the aforementioned property on January 26, 1993. The staff report presented to the commission that evening is attached. Ms. Brenda Roy, a resident adjoining the proposed subdivision, addressed the commission that evening asking that she be designated as the owner of the property listed under the name Richard Fedtke. Mr. Terry Forbord, representing the applicant, was present at the meeting as well. Upon conclusion of discussion that evening, the Park and Recreation Commission made the following recommendations: Parkland: It is recommended that the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $500.00 per unit. Trails: It is recommended that the City Council accept full trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easement dedication or construction as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is $167.00 per unit. Home placement plans shall be required to ensure the preservation of the trees on the site. Streetscape landscaping is required along Minnewashta Parkway. Plans should be submitted for staff review prior to submittal of the final plat. A requirement of one tree per lot will also be enforced as part of the building permit process. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat at their February 3, 1993, meeting. The Planning Commission raised the following issues at the meeting. The existing dock on the Boley property onto Lake St. Joe should be removed and the prospective owners of lots adjacent to the lake should be informed of the wetland adjacent to the lake and Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 9 — the prohibitions of docks. The Planning Commission directed staff to provide an intent of a rational for the variances for the shoreland regulation requirement of lot width of 125 feet. — RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the preliminary plat #93-1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 — single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated January 5, 1993, with variances and the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and — formal approval by the City Council. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10-year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration, and will discharge at the — predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100-year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe — which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. Bonestroo has determined that the 100 year flood elevation is 947.0. Staff is working with the Watershed District to resolve where the 100 year flood elevation is located. The applicant's — engineer shall review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. All storm — water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Mr. Ismael Martinez, is outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. — 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of slope, an additional row Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 10 of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. — 6. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20- foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes — shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. 7. The applicant shall place a sign on a barrier at the end of the southerly street extension indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each lot. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. 8. The applicant and staff from Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for future street extension to the west to serve the City of Victoria through one of the phases of development. 9. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements(Project No.90-15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. 10. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. — 11. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. 12. Approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria. 13. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 14. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1, for the following reasons: a. All lots abutting Lake St. Joe meet the 125 foot lot width, only lots not adjacent to the lake are recommended for a variance. _ b. Requirement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement will not affect the density of the project. Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 11 — c. The MnDNR's shoreland regulations are inappropriate when applied within the metro area. — 15. Compliance with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway and the requirement of one tree per lot. — 16. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed." ATTACHMENTS 1. Compliance table. 2. Application. 3. Lake St. Joe Wetland Classification. 4. Typical cross section of adjacent to the wetland from Sathre-Bergquist. — 5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated January 26, 1993. 6. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated January 28, 1993. 7. Letter from DNR dated January 15, 1993. — 8. Letter from Soil and Water Conservation District dated January 12, 1993. 9. Memo from Mark Littfin dated January 8, 1993. 10 Public hearing notice. 11. Planning Commission minutes dated February 3, 1993. 12. Plat dated January 5, 1992. . 4achy4h-( 1 IAT STANDARDS SUM44RY TABLE BLACK 1 LOT AREA LOT WIDTH AT BLDG IAT RIPARIAN NON-RIPARIAN REQUIRED ACTUAL AREA ABOVE REQUIRED ACTUAL WETLAND NO. 1 1' LOT AREA AREA WETLANDS WIDTH Wry SETBACK • 1 YES --- 40,000 SF 57,500 SF 31,000 125' 152' 100' 2 YES --- 40,000 SF 51,300 SF 30,000 125' 140' 70' 3 --- YES 20,000 SF 30,500 SF 22,000 125' 160' 55' 4 YES --- 40,000 SF 49,400 SF 20,000 125' 135' 60' 5 --- YES 20,000 SF 31,300 SF 20,600 125' 140' 80' - 6 --- ITS 20,000 SF 28,200 SF 21,400 125' 150' 75' 7 YES --- 40,000 SF 50,500 SF 20,600 125' 125' 85' • 8 YES --- 40,000 SF 103,100 SF 25,700 125' 125' 85' 9 YES --- 40,000 SF 121,800 SF 25,100 125' 125' 100' 10 ITS --- 40,000 SF 96,600 SF 24,600 125' 125' 90' 11 YES --- 40,000 SF 67,300 SF 23,600 125' 125' 90' 12 YES --- 40,000 SF 61,000 SF 31,000 125' 125' 80' 13 --- YES 20,000 SF 59,900 SF 44,800 125' (1) 125090' 80' 14 --- YES 20,000 SF 28,700 SF 125' (2) 100' " 15 --- YES 20,000 SF 22,600 SF 125' (2) 100' 16 --- YES 20,000 SF 21,300 SF 125' (2) 100' 17 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,400 SF 125' (2) 100' 18 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,100 SF 125' (2) 100' 19 --- YES 20,000 SF 21,900 SF 125' (2) 100' 20 --- YES 15,000 SF 34,100 SF 30,600 90' 100' 120' 21 --- YES 15,000 SF 42,500 SF 23,900 90' 100' 80' - 22 --- YES 15,000 SF 20,000 SF 90' 100' 23 --- YES 20,000 SF 21,700 SF 125' (2) 100' ▪ 24 --- YES 20,000 SF 29,100 SF 125' 148' 25 --- YES 20,000 SF 22,700 SF 125' (2).100' 26 --- YES 20,000 SF 22,000 SF 125' 130' --- YES 2n,ocY SF 20.(M sF !:-.7.' !21 inn' LOT STANDARDS SUMMARY TABLE BLOCK 2 LOT AREA LOT WIDTH AT BLDG LUT RIPARIAN NON-RIPARIAN REQUIRED ACTUAL REQUIRED ACTUAL NO. LAT LUT AREA AREA . WIDTH WIDTH 1 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,500 SF 125' 125' 2 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,100 SF 125' 140' 3 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 170' 4 --- YTS 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 175' _ 5 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 180' 6 --- ITS 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 128' -- AVERAGE AVERAGE LOT AREA: 38,670 SQUARE kEET AVERAGE LOT WIDTH: 125.7 LEET (AT PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK) (1) PROPOSED HOUSE SETBACK FOR NECK LOT IS 90 i i r MINIMUM WHERE LOT WIDTH IS 125 1.11:1% LOT WIDTH AT 30 1.EET SETBACK IS 38 Fi ±-r. VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR LOT WIDTH AT MINIMUM SEI ACK, FROM ZONING AND SHORELAND ORDINANCES. -- (2) VARIANCE (2) VARIANCE REQUIRED FROM SHORELAND ORDINANCE 125 1EE:T WIDTH STANDARD. NO VARIANCE NFFDED FROM RSF ZONING DISTRICT 90 T'TE l' WIDTH STANDARD. _ p,S Su 9`cc` SATHRE - BERGQUIST , INC . p ® � 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN 55391 (612) 476-6000 FAX 476-0104 /IS P\-Pa January 4, 1993 Mr. Paul Krauss CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box #147 Chanhassen Minnesota 55317 Subject: BOLEY Property Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. Dear Mr. Krauss: This letter is intended as supporting documentation to the Preliminary Plat and Variance request of Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. for the BOLEY Property on Minnewashta Parkway. Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. has agreed to purchase the Howard Boley property, in both Chanhassen and Victoria, in its entirely. The Boundary Survey includes land in the City of Chanhassen, (currently zoned RSF, and proposed for platting) and land in the City of Victoria over which we have "ghost platted" a possible subdivision. The subdivision requested will create 33 single family lots and 3 outlots served by public street and utility extensions from Minnewashta Parkway. The Chanhassen portion of the Boley property has been zoned RSF for many years. Public utilities have been available to service the property for years as well. The Preliminary Plat lists the proposed lot areas. All of the subdivided lots will be at least 20,000 square feet in area. Riparian lots, those with Lake St. Joe shoreline, are a minimum of 49,400 square feet. CITY Lake St. Joe has been classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural resources as a Natural Environment Lake. The City of Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance establishes a 1000 foot zone adjacent to Lake St. Joe's ordinary high water line (OHW) called the Shoreland Area. Within this zone riparian (lakeshore lots) are required to be 40,000 square feet and non-riparian lots must be 20,000 square feet. _ Normal RSF zoning district standards are a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet with minimum lot width of 90 at the building setback. In the Lake St. Joe Shoreland Area the ordinance requires 125 foot lot width at the lakeshore and at the building line. The riparian lots (and the other lots along the lake side of the proposed street) meet the 125' width at proposed setback standards. Lots across the street or farther from the lake are proposed to be 100 feet wide at the building line. While this 100 foot width is 10 feet wider than the Zoning Ordinance requires it is 25 feet less than the Shoreland Ordinance requires. Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. requests variances be granted to allow these reduced lot widths. The table attached presents the statistical lot by lot data for your review. The table shows that 10 lots are in need of variances. We believe the variances are justified for the following reasons: 1. The average lot width for all lots in the "Shoreland District" is 125.7 feet. This exceeds the 125 feet requirement. "Extra" lots are not being forced. — 2. One purpose of the 125 foot width standard is to lessen the pollution impacts of property development. The Preliminary _ Plans show four NURP ponds which are proposed to pre-treat the storm water from the storm sewer system. The NUR.P ponds are more beneficial to the Lake and wetlands than adding 25 feet to the width of the lots proposed for variances. 3. The variances sought are dictated by the physical constraints of the site. Strict adherence to the Shoreland Ordinance provision of 125 feet width would necessitate realignment of the streets proposed thus increasing the degree of site alteration. This hardship on the land is not warranted. The westerly portions of Lots 13 thru 21, Block 1, actually lie in the City of Victoria. The houses which will occupy these lots will be entirely built within Chanhassen. We intend to seek the necessary City of Victoria approvals to plat these lots as shown concurrently with the Chanhassen review process. Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. seeks Preliminary stage approvals at this time. They intend to proceed with actual site development in the late spring and summer of 1993, following Final Stage Approval. Sincerely, SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. K Richard W. Sathre, P.E. RWS/dm Attachment CQ� C` x 1y ti City of Chanhassen _ Wetland Observation Records Wetland No.: 3 (Field Review): 41— r , (Official Map) Location 11(,-,1,.1 T; 7?,,,J i R; 1 Section On USGS NWI: ✓ Y N _ Observer Initials: c-r Date Visited: to / / qz. Picture Number(s)/Roll#: 9—!3 !...7%-5 Picture Nos.: I -- y ( E.. 1 ct- 13—16/ f b/9/9 z} Classification _ Wetland Type: P (Cowardin); 3/5/(o/7 (Circular 39) Wetland Location: — Lakeside Streamside Headwaters ✓ Isolated (upland) Edge of Wetland Contour 9,-t"?. s ;varies City Class: (P)ristine ; (N)atural ✓- ; (A)g/Urban ; (U)tilized Watershed Characteristics Wetland Size: acres Direct drainage area: acres Total drainage area: acres Open water area: acres Vegetation _- 4.,tA.t. c - -c Gtr r � tr-a c< a1 a ti Dominant Plant Species: Prvrof fp Reed canary grass rp Cattail 5 _.rr , (ppi D PP 1)nooct C. zt-4 5 01,rt P 1�>. � r,.,) _ EI Purple Loosestrife: (D)ominant; (A)bundant; (S3e.me; (I)ndividuals; (N)one Plant Diversity: No. Species Dominant- 1; 2; 3-0 Percent open water: 70% Land Use Influences _ Surrounding Land Use (Percent): 5°i., Residential M,D,Rur. - Commercial/Industrial _ 5% Agricultural `fo i, Open Water 5 0. Wooded Institutional Vacant Field (describe below) _ Hydrology Water Source: ✓ Natural; Stormwater; Unknown — Inflow: Stream; Ditch; Stormsewer; Surface Outflow: ✓ Natural; Ditch; Culvert; None Sedimentation/Siltation: Y L.-----N Flooded -dead or dying trees: " Y N — Drains to L- • 5-4 fie. ; (Direction;Wetland No.) (C)ontinuously0onally; (I)ntermittently; (R)arely Soil Classification Soil Type Abby.: Soil Name: Other — Wildlife Observations: pt .,/ to,_ , General Notes/Comments: ! A;,,,,.rte,1.-,i e-l= - t I Jo Q�.,n c--,t r I(1..,"A 11 Cr..../' • Leo,_.{ 13--e 2�.e-r ......ad. � - Lc ._e. "; fm C.t-ti . P")9 4r .. di., ; vv,rA' 4-- F-Y_--vA. (":. , -1,-r--1•9-1-4,,.. •4•�.;P ! ')...d cA,.-2 . I J 7 — Section No. '1 Wetland Sketch;Photo • •.J.r,/rC� rr,t416-4PL \ a>42 - ---.4\_._;,- I . c,t,_,15 9 12 4._ ) , -* , 41‘Itl\c { 13 16 © S - i — Not to Scale\i/-,,,______3/ OT 7. BLOCK t Aj iczc{\.m-e ,1 7., __`_ — • ter_ .., „, a - . —1 e i "„''`mac •iiwiiiuii - o •r 6.0.4-.4-sr c..00n 4e.,-'1121 PROPOSED GRADE - MAX&AIM 3:t SLOPE oft /EXISTING GRADE J o3 1 . — �9 --- --------------------- ----------- :J r r 1111 \ 1 SECTION AA 9 \\,1 .\c SCALE: t Inch = t0 Feet 1Aili‘\ t SCALE:t Inch=100 Feet �\I Ippfillti8i tr - -, -- 2 Ila=�1I w y p! lllll'1• , •v . ,_-lij illtrii 7 , " ' t /; I ' , _...j.._,Z,--;':.--;,,i 41 -- '_ :), - - - - y' . a_ i, , 5 24 23 I \ _... CITY O CHANHASSEN _ •. , , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _+ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer ) DATE: January 26, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for the Boley Property/Lundgren Development File No. 93-4 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat dated December 28, 1992 and preliminary grading and utility plans dated December 28, 1992, prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of generally rolling terrain devoid of trees/wooded areas except for a few areas along Lake St. Joe. The property is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. The preliminary grading plan proposes extensive site grading to accommodate proposed building house pads and maintaining street grades within the City's guidelines (0.50% to 7.0%). According to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's 509 Plan, the 100-year flood elevation for Lake St. Joe is at 949.5. Fill placement proposed along Lots 6 through 9, Block 1, appears to be encroaching into the Watershed District's 100-year flood boundary. Placement of fill material on these lots should be limited to areas outside the 100-year flood boundary. Side slopes adjacent to Lake St. Joe are proposed at 3:1 which are fairly steep but not excessive. Site restoration,vegetative cover and erosion control efforts should follow the City's recently adopted Best Management Practice for Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fence should be employed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In some instances where side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed 200 feet upstream of the toe of slope. All access points from the construction site should be surfaced and maintained with a crushed rock base in accordance with the City's BMPH (Attachment No. 1). Storm water runoff from the development is proposed to maintain the existing drainage pattern. The majority of the overall site drains towards Lake St. Joe. The southwesterly rs t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 Page 2 corner of the property drains westerly towards a wetland basin in Victoria. The majority of the storm water generated from the development is proposed to be carried via storm sewer system and discharged into water treatment/retention ponds prior to discharging into I Ake St. Joe or the wetlands in Victoria. Mr. Ismael Martinez with the City's storm water — consultant, Bonestroo and Associates, has reviewed this development proposal and has recommended minimum ponding capacities and characteristics for the proposed water quality ponds (Attachment No. 2). In an effort to help reduce future City maintenance of these water quality ponds, staff recommends the applicant look at consolidating the ponds proposed on Outlots A and B; either on one of the outlots or on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, outside the wetlands. Prior to final plat approval, detailed storm sewer and ponding design calculations shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. The storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. The ponding areas shall meet or exceed the City's water quality standards (NURP) and retention requirements for a 100-year, 24- _ hour storm event. Discharge from the site shall be maintained at predeveloped runoff conditions. Access to the water quality/retention ponds for maintenance purposes shall be provided by an easement dedicated on the final plat. All easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Side slopes on the maintenance access routes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slope. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. Upon final construction plan submittal, a — development plan shall be included on the final grading plan denoting the house type and proposed lowest floor and garage slab elevations. In addition, all proposed lot corner elevations shall be shown. Plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. UTILITIES — The plans propose extending municipal utilities from Minnewashta Parkway into the site. Municipal sanitary sewer and water lines in Minnewashta Parkway are adequately sized to — accommodate this development proposal. The applicant's engineer has also designed the utilities to serve a future phase to the south which is in the City of Victoria. Final placement of fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Construction of all municipal utilities shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be _ submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and final approval by the City Council. STREETS Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 Page 3 The street plans propose on extending a public street westerly from Minnewashta Parkway just south of Minnewashta Court. A public street extension is also proposed to the south for future service to Victoria which will eventually loop back into Minnewashta Parkway. Sight lines at the proposed intersection is fairly good considering the speed limit on Minnewashta Parkway. Although a future or concept looped street to the south through Victoria and back out to Minnewashta Parkway with the next phase will have to be carefully studied. Sight lines are poor due to roadway geometrics on Minnewashta Parkway. Ideally, future street extensions through Victoria should line up perpendicular to Minnewashta Parkway preferably across from one of the existing intersections at either Hawthorne Circle or 77th Street. A sign indicating 'THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" should be placed on one of the barricades at the end of the proposed south street. The applicant and staff from both Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for a future street extension to the west to Victoria through this phase or the next phase. With the topographic constraints around this parcel, it may not be feasible; however, it should still be reviewed. Street grades proposed are between 0.75% and 6.0% which are within the City's current standards. The applicant has proposed a 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 31-foot wide street (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) which is also within the City's guidelines. All street — intersections should be perpendicular to each other. The second intersection in from Minnewashta Parkway, at the loop, needs some minor adjusting to accomplish this. Construction of the public street improvements shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. As you are aware, the City is currently undergoing an improvement project to upgrade Minnewashta Parkway (Project No. 90-15). The Minnewashta Parkway project proposes to assess this parcel a portion of the project costs. The feasibility study for the Minnewashta Parkway project estimated 39 assessable units for this parcel. The City Council approved a rate per unit of $760 and equates to a pending assessment of $29,640. The assessment hearing for the Minnewashta Parkway project is not proposed until early fall of 1993. MISCELLANEOUS An existing house currently exists on proposed Lot 1, Block 1. It is assumed the applicant is proposing to remove the house with the subdivision construction. The applicant should be aware they will need to apply and comply with all the local building and demolition codes. The sanitary sewer and water service to the residence shall be abandoned and disconnected at the property line along Minnewashta Parkway. Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 Page 4 _ RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance _ with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. _ 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. _ 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10-year storm event and ponding calculations that show _ that the ponds will retain a 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration, and will discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity — of all ponds. 5. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100-year flood elevation of Lake — St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. 6. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. 7. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 8. The applicant's engineer shall review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding _ area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 Page 5 9. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20-foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. 10. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. _ 11. The applicant shall place a sign at the end of the southerly street extension indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 12. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. 13. The applicant and staff from both Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the — potential for future street extension to the west to serve the City of Victoria through one of the phases of development. — 14. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant,Mr. Ismael Martinez, is outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. 15. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90-15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. ktm Attachments: 1. Detail on temporary rock construction entrance. 2. Letter from Ismael Martinez dated January 15, 1993. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer convenient and effective. The wash rack would consist of a heavy grating over a lowered area in the construction entrance. The grating may be a prefabricated rack such as a cattle guard, or it may be constructed on-site of structural steel. In any case, the wash rack must be strong enough to support the vehicles that will cross it. Figure 15.2 shows a typical wash rack installation. MAINTENANCE The rock pad needs occasional maintenance to prevent tracking of mud onto paved roads. This may require periodic top dressing with additional rock or removal and — reinstallation of the pad. Hard surface411* ' public road .•4"a / wit gra;•41.40••-•• 50' minimum et �f� VI" •�� ir��ii� •�it<� eaii:�ii. 6' minimum Aft• • • alr .:tom .'•-:t: 1--2-washed rode • FIGURE 15.1: Rock Construction Entrance. Source: MPCA's BMP Handbook 39304pt3 ATTACHMENT 1 01-18-1993 09:19 612 36 1311 BONESTROO & Ar—C. P.01 Cetn G.Ionecna PE hs:wel A Sanbb.PE. MOO P Rau,PE Msec I *Men,P1. Bonestroo Rawl V.' Rosana.PE! Keen A CRAW%PE Agnes M.RN.A.I.CI L MOLp Owe:IU,P.E Joseph C.AntleNk.PE. RabeR R.Metric.PE, Thxhas W.Peterson,PE. Karen L.WierneR PE. Marvin L.Sorwla.PE. lic?* W Foxy,PE. MOW C.Lynn,P.E. Gay D.Krlao<ta.PE Rosene Richard E ?Jinn..PE. DaysO Q Lnssmu.PE, James R Malan.PE F T000 Roue.PE Gann R.Cook.PE. *OM C.Russek AIA. *try Pei sch.PE KW R Yaps PE Anderf fie & ?norm E.Nom.PF. Jery A.Swam PE. Kermh P.Mrtlenon.PE. Shawn D GusWson.PE [ / Remit G.SChu'Cht.PE Marc A.Hanson,PE. Marc I Mors,PE. Ce[Llo CllMer.PE. _ As'soc'iates k'*i M Eperrt C PA MOW T.Rautmam,PE. Mart A Selo P.E Charles A.Erickson *Set,Co ua arx ha K.Plaid.PE. Gary W Morten.P.E. Leo M PaNtlsky Thomas R Andvrsoh.Ai A. Daniel J Edgerton PE. Harlan M.Otron Engineers & Architects Donna C.kr9.pra PE Daryl K KRschmmn.PE, James F Engerarot Thomas E.Argus PE RIO 1 Caswe.P.E. brae Mar4nes.FE. Mit Q 1W it PE. MEMO TO: David Hampel, City of Chanhassen Fax No. 937-5739 FROM: Ismael Martinez DATE: January 15, 1993 RE: Boley Property Development FILE NO.: 393Gen Stormwater Review Hi Dave ! • INTRODUCTION We have performed a stormwater and water quality review of the proposed development, Boley Property Development. Our review was based on the proposed development characteristics shown in the Preliminary Grading Plan dated December 28, 1992, As a result of our review we recommend the following capacities and characteristics for the proposed water quality ponds: Pond A Pond B Pond C Pond D — Wet Volume AF 0 . 3 0 . 17 *0 .24 0 . 16 Mean Depth Ft 2 .7 2 . 0 2 .2 2 . 0 * This wet volume for Pond C assumes the existence of pond D downstream. OBSERVATIONS The proposed development is located in the Southwest corner of Lake St. Joe West of Minnewashta Parkway in the NE 1/4 of Section 7, T 116 N, R 23 W, in the City of Chanhassen. ATTACHMENT 2 01-18-1993 09:19 612 -36 1311 BONESTROO & P.02 - The proposed development drains naturally to two existing natural wetlands, Lake St Joe to the north and a southerly wetland. Lake St Joe is classified as a Palustrine Lake, with Emergent Vegetation in the surroundings Classified as a natural+ wetland in the City's wetland inventory. The stormsewer system for the proposed development contains four water quality treatment ponds. We have assigned names to these ponds as follows: Pond A - Located in lot 11, drains directly into Lk. St Joe Pond B - Located in lot 21, drains into a wetland in the City of Victoria Pond C - Located in outlot A, drains into Pond D Pond D - Located at the corner of Minnewashta Pkwy and the entrance of the proposed development, drains into Lake St Joe The drainage system shown in sheet 2 of 4 follows the natural topography and most of it drains directly into the wetlands. RESULTS The proposed development will have to meet basic water quality treatment of the runoff collected by the stormsewers. Special considerations were made regarding this development as part of our modeling to estimate practical pollutant concentrations due to the low traffic volume anticipated and the local topography. As a result of our review we recommend the following improvements: Pond A Pond B Pond C Pond D Wet Volume AF 0 . 3 0 . 17 *0 .24 0 . 16 Mean Depth Pt 2 . 7 2 . 0 2 .2 2 . 0 * This wet volume for Pond C assumes the existence of pond D downstream, COMMENTS The proposed water quality ponds should meet or exceed the wet volume and the mean depth. The mean depth is particularly important due to the size of the ponds. Pond A should be protected against the erosion that can result from overtoping. Special attention should be paid to the erosion control measures and best management practices for this development. The topography and the grading proposed in the plans can result in impacts to the wetlands that could exceed the performance of the ponds in many years. If you have any comments please call me at 636-4600, Have a nice day ! .. -,,, CITY OF ,p, ,_ ,. ,r,.t,. .., :;-..„1CHANHASSEN _ ..,,,,. 4 - :d- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ti (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 _ ...1. MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director ' — DATE: January 28, 1993 SUBJ: Boley Property Preliminary Plat The Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the application by Lundgren Brothers Construction to subdivide the aforementioned property on January 26, 1993. The staff report presented to the commission that evening is attached. Ms. Brenda Roy, a resident adjoining the proposed subdivision, addressed the commission that evening asking that she be designated as the owner of the property listed under the name Richard Fedtke. Mr. Terry Forbord, representing the applicant, was present at the meeting as well. Upon conclusion of discussion that evening, the Park and Recreation Commission made the following recommendations: Parkland: It is recommended that the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $500.00 per unit. Trails: It is recommended that the City Council accept full trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easement dedication or construction as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building _ permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is$167.00 per unit. If i1, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY 0 F ''RC DATE: Jan. 26, 1993 CC DATE: 7/1( CHANIIASSEN HOFFMAN:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to subdivide 36 acres into 33 single family homes on property zoned RSF LOCATION: Located southeast of Lake St. Joe, east of Minnewashta Parkway, and north of J z Highway 5 (see attached location map--Attachment A) 0 j .1 APPLICANT: Lundgren Brothers Construction 935 East Wayzata Blvd. Q., Wayzata, MN 55391 1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family S - City of Victoria 1 E - RSF, Residential Single Family W - City of Victoria < COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Recreation Section of the City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the 17. area of the city which this proposed plat lies in as park deficient. This is no surprise to the commission, Q • staff, the applicant, and the residents of Chanhassen living west of Lake Minnewashta. There is no park of any kind, public open space, playground, or other recreation area located west of Lake Minnewashta W between Highway 5 and Highway 7. The Minnewashta Parkway "neighborhoods" represent a large and 1 increasing population of the city. The city has initiated steps to eliminate this park deficiency. First, a park acquisition and development fund reserve specifically for the purchase of land west of Lake (f) Minnewashta was established. Secondly, contacts inquiring about the purchase of property in this area 1 have been made. Some commissioners may recall that Mr. Terry Forbord of Lundgren Brothers Construction spoke to the commission in September of 1990 during the review of a separate issue; however, he referenced the possible development of the Boley property. A great deal of discussion that L Park and Recreation Commission January 21, 1993 Page 2 evening centered upon the designation of the land around Lake St. Joe with the exception of the Malinowski property as park/open space on the city's land use plan (Attachment B). This designation will be honored under this current proposal. This is not due to any effort by the developer as the property is a designated wetland and is protected as such. This designated open space, although of tremendous value, does not lessen the need for a park in this region of the city, however. The question then remains, is the Boley property the appropriate site for a park of at least ten acres in size west of Lake Minnewashta? I do not believe so for three reasons: 1. The topographic constraints confronted on this site would make development of a park, _ even one with a high percentage of passive area, difficult. 2. The site is removed from the center of the west Lake Minnewashta region. Property north of this site would be more appropriate for use as a park. 3. The site borders the City of Victoria on two sides. As you can see from the preliminary _ plat, the entirety of this proposed development includes some 20 lots in Victoria in addition to the 33 proposed in Chanhassen. Recent negotiations over ownership and operation responsibilities of Cathcart Park with the City of Shorewood exemplify the difficulties which can arise from the acquisition of a second "border" park. RECOMMENDATION Upon consideration of these findings, it is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of approval of the Boley property. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $500 per unit. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies two trail segments on or adjacent to this proposed development. I will address them separately. Minnewashta Parkway: An 8-ft. bituminous trail is being constructed along Minnewashta Parkway in conjunction with the upgrade of the parkway itself. In the area of this development, the trail is on the east side of the parkway. The construction of this trail satisfies the designation on the Comprehensive Plan for a trail adjacent to the easterly border of the applicant's property. Park and Recreation Commission January 21, 1993 Page 3 — Nature Trail Around Lake St. Joe: The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a nature trail around Lake St. Joe. A discussion with Mr. Mark Koegler of Hoisington-Koegler Group confirmed my assumption that the purpose of this designation was to provide public access to the unique open space around Lake St. Joe, particularly to its west. Unfortunately, this designation was made without close consideration being given to the — difficulty of traversing this area. A trail around Lake St. Joe would require the dedication of a rear yard easements above the edge of the wetland on Lots 1-13, Block 1. The fact that this designation would not be favored by the applicant is of no concern to me. What — does concern me is the lack of justification for the investment which would be necessary to construct and maintain a boardwalk leading north of the proposed development. If this trail was to be located in a large city or regional park, the unique experience offered by — a boardwalk entering such an area would be welcomed. In a neighborhood setting, however, this type of trail is not justifiable. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept - full trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easement dedication or construction as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is $167.00 per unit. As explained, this recommendation is in direct conflict with the city's Comprehensive Plan. If the commission is uncomfortable with this recommendation, a recommendation should be given to the city council requiring a trail easement be granted by the applicant on Lots 1-13, Block 1. . I 1 0009-9L1 (Z l9) • 1 ui.'SS 'NP `VINIZAYM • AVMOVONE 1 ' SNI ` ZSI11h2iaS X23 -.........I.......? . 5.3...."_,,,7„,...,...„, ..... ......, ,\...:1) -- ,; 40...}.2,,, ..:A______, z \,. , .. _r_, ^S iii .�'7 `� 1 r V I �; 1 .�... 2. `�fi.21/. , r LI 1 �1 I _ I li ! �•� 1 ‹..1. L /fir y •st. • .."..,,,.•, .•\ \e)-- I I 1 ; r k ?r4 • 1 •Q\ . I r I `- z ' �:le• 1 t....:1 CD Te.• i 1;•'r I c it 1 1 � I ars: ti =' II -:< .••..'•s' Z I I _I i OA1e7•:u11jIVN J I a Z a `.I01 : 1 .11 N1 V ` I+ , LIJ � O � = t v Cip CM 61.6 w.0 ; in E:/)a 1� til � r 4 _1 I�nrI, __ - _ - - _ O - :rte .: Z i. > J ,..... Iii= ,, < •4 . C1) .1..... , e ..._ I )._: .„...•n•n� 1. •E ,J pJ 9 1a t i e� i , 1...*i `� - Jr= , 1 a ' . i• -, ---, a . ." -, gar /ir'; - — -= s s : 1 -- -il,l . - I A, s•-\... 4,0-...%.,„„ i x _ ilr . 1 / — W5:•"2:' J in r`��,N ' _ - is-- --�'= -- - - - z +�R;:i—`i-- - - / y / / •, o , j �; -•\.‘ I T' S ..2•••• • • a ELMER CARL n Ilk•A,►Iii IAA il AvL,1ul uA14144 rU w [ —.. wt. I1144 w ROBERT C. WILSON i : F I Ii 40. r A31 7 I II N s� ll`/ r i al` f - Ni r. r • \'t • I• e SII O 014.4 r.�•••••sYr GC' •C 1 O 1 \�4. T) A5 ARL C0.111164.1C0.111164.1C0.111164.1.11 ' 4 ,, P0ti ), DO00•0S LMICrLLT 1 E. _ — •• ea ra In.. \ /.. i'.. • �.„ ONOIq C _ _ IP • f JOYCE A lLIRAu 1 HOWARD S. BOLEY ' • I i JOANNE Y LAND CU MSI F Iu. b i' s • 'Y • f*-1. Ir • • • ' .• '• • --- /L�Gr�`• E e+t;hs• — CC�/�S , i-e- f//c o. /x/49 , .. •) I.1 � EDMARD /INR GG'/L,e �O,�GrC-el '_�". Z<411 s `'ir `� lr m a/Navasur ri. :I (III Of VIC10•11 •• 41 Lel• 7 :i I a,i • ..� • Coil I 11 if ANTON KERBER HOWARD S. HOLEYif..... /7 r :l SA 40,P 114r ...y: fl dry f 1 4 W 77� .4 Ch7r wf4.O1 3 —ra,_— s^ ,S P� :.',•:::: `�x. .' $ GHQ —� -- ----r— __ -- �A-EIS— an,--r----- .1:.:_-_:, ' ti ili,§0 • ...•...III•...1•J . , \ NI I•.•.. 4.• •w•n.f . II/44P MNNfrI •11. 1. — r l M.11.••••, \`f LI CPPt ity council Meeting - FL. Jary 22, 1993 Councilman Mason: Yeah, and I just wanted, and again. I'm agreeing with what Paul is saying. I'm not saying I want Abra there or not. I just agree with what Paul is saying. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 36 ACRES INTO 33 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS, BOLEY SUBDIVISION, 7340 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, LUNDGREN BROS. Kate Aanenson: Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Bros is proposing to develop 36 acres of property into 33 single family lots. This property is currently owned by Mr. Boles. It 's part of a larger parcel that 's also in Victoria. If I can explain the limits of the property here. This area here is in the city of Chanhassen. This is outlots. Exemptions. . .from the property. . . so these are actually in the city. Mayor Chmiel: Outlots are not within the city of Chanhassen? Kate Aanenson: No. These right here are exemptions. This is all Victoria and this is also part of Victoria. So there is a. . .city line that splits the back of those lots. The property has a gross density of .91 units per acre and a net density of 1.3? units per acre. There's two wetlands on site and the rolling topography has some significant views from the property and some treed areas also. The three tree areas located along Minnewashta Parkway on Lots 1 and the backs of Lots 13, 12, 11, 10 and there's also significant tree areas in Outlot C. At this time the area, Outlot C is being left out . It seems to make sense that the property to the south, which is in Victoria is lotted out , that the access be gained from Victoria's side and we think this makes good planning sense too in the fact that you can save those significant amount of trees. As I mentioned, the Victoria city line, the City Attorney, Don Ashworth and myself did mee' with Victoria. They had concerns about the lot line splitting the subdivision and their preference would be to have it pulled in and not plat that into two different jurisdictions. It 's our contention that we have other circumstances in the city where we provided service where properties aren't in the city. We have this across the street actually with Victoria. The church and those homes part of the Trolls Glen area. We feel like, as far as the lot remnants it makes less sense to leave that and to be platted into the subdivision. Councilman Senn: Just so I understand what you're talking about . This is the line right here? Kate Aanenson: Right . Yeah, you can see the lines up to the back of these. The homes would actually fall into the city so it's the back portion of the lot that would actually fall into the city of Victoria. Councilman Senn: But the houses would be in Chanhassen and the back of the lot wouldn't be? Kate Aanenson: Correct . Councilman Senn: And that line goes right there? Kate Aanenoon: Correct . So we feel it doesn't make sense to leave that as a lot remnant . Although in working we've asked Victoria and obviously their 24 City Council Meeting ",bruary 22, 1993 w, 1 'f approportion is a part of the puzzle on this. They would have to give because the backs of those lots do fall in their jurisdiction. They do have to give approval for the subdivision. Again, we feel that this area here itself may also make sense to be in part of Chanhassen and we're looking at that issue itself as far as annexation. We do have services in Minnewashta Parkway to provide services. We've asked Victoria to look at how they plan on servicing this area and providing access. There is a significant amount of wetlands to the west , including Tamarack Lake and a wetland surrounding that . What we're looking at is how access would be provided to this area. . . The Shoreland regulations, Lake St. Joe is classified as a natural environment lake. All the _ lots abutting the lake, the riparian lots do meet the 40,000 square foot requirement with the lot width. There are 12 lots that do not meet the 125 foot lot requirement and we did recommend variances from that. The Planning Commission did have concern with giving a blanket variance. What does that do — to further projects that would come forward. to staff did address an intent statement reflected in condition number 14 as to why we felt that those lots that are not abutting the lake, why they should be under the 125 foot lot width. We feel it doesn't effect the density in any way and it 's really. . .to the subdivision. It 's not going to give less lots. The wetland regulations, as I mentioned there's two wetlands. One adjacent to the lake and the other one is right here. This one was left off the wetland inventory, although we have gone out and looked at a wetland special. . .went out and inventoried it. All the lots abutting the wetland do meet the setback requirements which is 40 feet under the natural classification. This is one of the few natural wetlands we have in the — city as part of the new wetland regulations. As you recall, we require re-vegetation and have a 20 foot average so it can meander 10 to 30 feet , which all these lots can meet that . As a part of that we haven't come up with a vegetation requirement but we will be looking at it before it comes back to final plat . One of the concerns that we did have, in looking at the grading issue, and the trees. The amount of grading going towards the wetland. When you first look at it , at first blush it seems like a lot of grading back towards the edge of the wetland but upon further investigation it was determined that actually this area was farmed right up to the wetland already and going back and requiring the re-vegetation actually is going to improve the situation. And the other issue is that you get a positive flow, to have the run-off run back towards the street . The fill is, this is the edge of the wetland. You bring the fill in and they wanted to get a positive, this is a 1'c flow back in the street to actually get into the storm water system into the pre-treatment ponds so we can pre-treat it before it goes into the wetlands. So at first blush again as I mentioned, it appeared to be a significant amount of grading but then upon further investigation it makes good planning sense and drainage sense. As I mentioned earlier, this can be serviced from utilities from Minnewashta Parkway. There's also a trail as a part of that project that 's being put in by the city. I mentioned earlier that we're looking at maybe stubbing, depending on what Victoria does, there's two accesses going to the property. Off of Minnewashta Parkway, this property is developed in that format . Otherwise, depending on how this lays out . . .provide access to Victoria to the west. _ Parkland, the Parks and Recreation Commission has met on this. They're recommending that the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication. As far as trails, they're also recommending that they accept trail fees. landscaping. I mentioned that there is some trees that will be moved as far as the grading. Mostly in this area right in here. Councilman Wing had brought up an issue too that the views looking across the wetland. . .pretty much is my 25 City Cpuncil Meeting - Fe: '"-y 22, 1993 understanding is looking across the wetlands to Minnewashta Parkway on the backs of these lots. In meeting with the applicant, we'd recommend an additional condition of approval, that being number 17. That we work, before we come back for final plat , to come up with an appropriate landscaping plan on the riparian lots to try and soften that look across the wetland. As I mentioned, the Planning Commission was concerned about the intent of giving blanket variances on the lots that did not meet the shoreland width requirements and we did add that in the condition of approval of the intent . Items (a) and (b). It doesn't effect the density and that 's only the lots that are not abutting the lake. One other item of clarification would be condition number 4. There seems to be a couple different interpretations as to what the flood elevation is between the Watershed and the ONR and Bonestroo, our consulting engineers have given us a different number. So we'll be working with the applicant on that to determine what that elevation is. So based on that , staff recommends approval and the Planning Commission recommended approval also with the conditions in the staff - report . I've highlighted in bold the changes that the Planning Commission did make to the report . Councilman Mason: And there will be one more condition about the landscaping? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, 17 you need to add. Correct . - Mayor Chmiel: 17. Landscaping. Kate Aanenson: Landscaping. Additional on those lots, the riparian lots. Councilman Senn: The issue is what , the people on the other side don't want to be able to see across. . .? Kate Aanenson: No, I think Councilman Wing brought that up and he can articulate a little bit better. It 's my understanding that the view, this person. . .across the lake and that we've taken down some trees in this area so - you're not looking right at the grass going up to the back of the houses. Maybe putting in some cluster of trees. We do have a requirement in the landscaping ordinance that requires that each new home you have to put 1 tree in. But that may, normally we require it in the front. We want someOing in the back so when you look across the lake up towards the house, that there's something to break up the line. Kind of soften it . ▪ Councilman Senn: Do those trees exist on the other side then? Kate Aanenson: Are there trees on the other side? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Maybe Dick can explain his. Councilman Wing: Well, looking across Lake St. Joe, what you kind of have is the Sound of Music. Mary could be up on the hill singing because it's pretty — wide open and it 's just sort of an open knoll if you will. And if you come into Chanhassen. Mark where I was really coming from here, as you come into Chanhassen from the east , just prior to our city border, there's a large swamp. - Wetland down there and then right straight across is all these little monopoly 26 City Council Meetino - February 22, 1993 houses and that 's it . I mean you go from this wetland right to this stark _ neighborhood. No trees. No vegetation. Nothing. Well I don't expect Terry to come in and landscape or buffer or block those homes. They want their views. I do on the lake where I live. But I thought there's just one specific area, actually it 's lots 7, 8 and 9 are the only ones that are going to be effected. — Because there's trees off to the south and there's trees along the north border that will probably, some of those will probably stay so my thinking was just to break up the impact because it 's such a touchy environmental area to, I've got to let Terry decide what he's going to do but my thought was to put in 3, 4, 5 pine trees with a couple hardwoods clustered in one spot and another one may be here and another there so that the impact across the lake doesn't go straight into this hill. Straight into the backs of these homes. That there's some — buffering. Environmental buffering between the homes and this area. And if you were to drive out there, you'd see what I'm talking about immediately. Very stark and I think we deserve to have it buffered a little bit in the planning — process, but not blocking views. Not buffering the homes from the area. Just strategically placed trees that are going to give some buffering to the impact of this development on Lake St. Joe. Councilman Senn: Okay. So I mean that 's not being interpretted then by staff as some kind of solid landscaping wall so these people can't look at. Kate Aanenson: No, no, no. No, that 's why we're leaving it kind of open just to work with the staff to come up with an appropriate and you'll see it when we come back for final plat . Mayor Chmiel : Does the applicant wish to say something? Briefly. Rick Sathre: Your honor, I'm Rick Sathre with Sathre-Berquist , 150 South —' Broadway in Wayzata. I'm the engineer and planner for Lundgren Bros on this project and Mr. Forbord, Terry Forbord is here from Lundgren as well. He's asked me to just briefly show you one slide and just to reiterate that Lundgren — Bros are contract purchasers of all of the Howard Boley property, which is a little strange in it 's boundary configuration and does lie in both cities. We will be pursuing approvals in Victoria as well. I've got an overhead that shows the homes. Councilmember Senn was interested in seeing how the homes related to the boundary line between the two cities. Here's that municipal boundary right here. You can see the houses would be comfortably in Chanhassen and the Victoria partof those lots would be the backyard space or a portion of the backyard space. We think it 's a good way to deal with that very strange strip of land. What else could we do? The staff's done a terrific job with the report. We're in agreement with the condition that 's being added to work on softening the views of those riparian lots. We want the development to look very nice. These lots are very large and the homes will be very nice in this subdivision. Lot areas range from 20,000 square feet up to about 121,000 square _ feet. It 's a little unusual for any city but Chanhassen as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you would have. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Rick, let me ask a question in regard to the proposal and the — ghost portion as to what might go within the city of Victoria: I don't have any real problems or too many concerns with the part that's within Chanhassen. But I would take a position that the city of Chanhassen is not in a position to provide water and sewer for those areas within the city of Victoria. 27 w, .City Council Meeting - Fe... _'ary 22, 1993 Rick Sathre: We understand that you would prefer not to extend utilities into an adjoining city. Mayor Chmiel: Right . I just want that put on record so everyone is aware of that. In the event that this becomes annexed into the city of Chanhassen, I don't have any objections to that . But I think what we have to do as far as the city's concerned, we have to watch the total amounts of sewer addage that we're going to need for our own city or we're going to find ourselves in a position like Chaska running out of area for that , as they have presently. Their sewage treatment plant no longer can facilitate any additional building. So we made an agreement between Chaska and Chanhassen. We're going to connect into our intercept but in the same token the city of Chanhassen is getting something back from that in areas that we can go closer to their facility, we're able to connect into their sewage system to be provided iwto their sewage treatment plant . So I just want that understood. We have to get something for something and I think we have to be careful on what we do with that . Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess two questions on two separate issues. One is, I see number 16, the existing dock on Lake St . Joe on the Boley property should be removed. Is there something implied in that? Kate Aanenson: Well there was a discussion with the Planning Commission, since those are riparian lots, that maybe each homeowner would want to put a dock in. As I mentioned earlier, this is one of the few natural wetlands that we have in the city and our concern is that we'd be coming in with a wetland alteration permit on each one of those lots. And I think the intent is that they have access on Minnewashta Parkway where there is an access and that would be the desired intent to use that access. Hr. Boley has a dock right now and that be taken out and then encourage the residents to use the parkway and go over and use that public access on the lake. Councilman Senn: So we are not , are we or are we not negating their right then to put a dock in on their property? Kate Aanenson: Well, they'd have to go through a wetland alteration permit and the only way they could get one is a significant space between the vegetation and the lake. The only way we could do it is under a boardwalk and I think that would be a chance to not allow those. Councilman Wing: If you could go and look at this, this is a low area. A very intense, steep, muddy swamp area and to put a dock out there, I don't know what you'd accomplish even when you got out there. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Councilman Wing: And there is no fishing in the lake either by the way. Councilman Senn: There is good fishing in that lake. That 's what ,I'm wondering about . How do you get to the fish Wing? Councilman Wing: There is a State access on the lake. 28 City Council tleetir Iv., February 22, 1993 — a Councilman Senn: Because people like you keep saying there isn't any there, that there's plenty of fish there. Paul Krauss: Actually we've heard that that lake is 80 feet deep. Councilman Wing: I have a 75 foot anchor line and last summer we never hit bottom. Scared the daylights out of me. Paul Krauss: And I've heard that there may be some fish in there, although I don't think it's ever stocked. Mayor Chmiel: Sorry I brought it up. Councilman Wing: . . .but you see no, there are no ice houses out there because they're not getting anything during the wint' r but during the summer and — spring. . . Councilman Senn: I'll go diving there this summer and find out . Second question. Is there some, I don't know, this split up lot situation. by concern is, I mean is there any way that we can put some type of a governance or, I don't know what the right words are. Stipulations or something as it relates to _ covenants or whatever on the property so that the back part of the properties don't all of a sudden not meet Chanhassen rules and become whatever, we can pursue whatever we want to do and do whatever we want to routine versus meeting the same rules that the front part of the lot has to meet. Paul Krauss: Which standards are we? Councilman Senn: Well I mean if you take these lots that are. . .split between the cities, as I envision it , okay yes. You've got the front part of the lot which operates under one set of rules, i .e. Chanhassen. Let 's say Victoria has no rules on the back half and all of a sudden we're in World War III because our — residents are fighting with each other over uses, sheds, this, that and the other thing. Can we put , I guess my question is, to avoid that situation, can we put some sort of covenants or whatever on those properties through the development process which says, the residents have to assure or make sure, I mean again. I mean we can't effect the land because the land's in Victoria. Paul Krauss: Right . Councilman Senn: But we could make it a stipulation of the front half, for them to stay in compliance on the front half, they have to meet our rules on the back half. Paul Krauss: I'm sure sooner or later somebody's going to come up with — something that we would not favor back there but it 's hard to know what it might be. Councilman Senn: You know it's going to happen. '— Paul Krauss: To the extent that our regulations are more restrictive than Victoria's, presumably something like that could occur. If Victoria were more — restrictive than us, then it really wouldn't matter what we said because the 29 City Council fleeting - Feb 4"( 22, 1993 we, • land's not annexed. Their ordinance would still prevail. In the form of covenants though, it presents something of an enforcement problem because then the only recourse we have is a legal one to. . .against the property owner. I suppose it 's possible. I would defer to the City Attorney on that . I haven't heard about doing it but this situation is odd enough that maybe it 's - worthwhile. Councilman Senn: Do you understand what I'm saying? See my point? Rick Sathre: Sure. Sure. At least this isn't as bad as the Sofitel or whatever it is. Where the kitchen's in one city and the rest is in another. - Councilman Senn: I understand. . .situations unfortunately. Rick Sathre: Lundgren Bros puts restrictive covenants on their projects and they would apply the same standards to the lots that lie in two cities to the lots that lie only in Chanhassen. Those covenants haven't been worked out at this point but they govern certainly additional restrict use of the property and we'll be working on that . Councilman Senn: I guess in my mind, Lundgren Bros does a good job of that. I guess I would just like to be assured or make sure that when they do draft that , ▪ and maybe this comes back to staff, that that in effect be considered and be put in there so we don't run into that problem in the future. Rick Sathre: You know their interest is not to have neighbors be bad neighbors to each other . Councilman Senn: Unfortunately we have to live with it longer. Rick Sathre: That 's true. — Mayor Chmiel : Any other discussions? Councilwomen Dockendorf: I just have a question of staff. Just being a novice at this. There seems to be a lot of open issues. I realize that this is preliminary approval but I guess it 's also a question to my fellow Council members. — Mayor Chmiel: Well, being that it 's strictly preliminary as yet, and until it comes back and finalized, then we can have our full say as to what we really want . But the only reason I brought up the issues on the sewer and water is I thought we'd best put that up right now and take our position and say that 's where it 's at . Paul Krauss: I don't know if it will put your mind at ease, Councilwoman Dockendorf, but apart from the un',.sual configuration with the city line here, it 's actually a pretty simple plat . I mean the kinds of issues that are outstanding at this point are pretty standard and are generally worked out in — due course. Kate Aanenson: Like I said, the utilities are there. There's no pending getting service to them. 30 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 _ 7 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was looking at the. . .of the wetland. Kate Aanenson: Right . That was just the one, we had that analysis, preliminary it looks like it's an ag urban and that house, under those circumstances would meet it . There's no re-vegetation. The other issue is the storm water and they -- wait wait until they get preliminary approval and come back with those calc's and make sure the pond's the right size. But actually this one is pretty straight forward. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard, do you have any questions? Councilman Wing: Well, first off Colleen. Where it says preliminary, it means the next time you see it is final and then we get into these debates. Now is the time to, rather than debating it now so that it doesn't even get to us without this done. Number 14, lot width requirements. I don't favor a variance _ on that . That condenses the project down and I don't like the appearance of that . And I happen to like the other 25 foot lot width and I'd like to stick with that . That 's the. . .I'd like to see this without that variance. Mayor Chmiel : Okay. No other discussions? Councilman Senn: Now that requirement picks some kind of an average point — though right? Because of the cul-de-sacs and all that sort of thing. Kate Aanenson: Measured at the 30 foot setback line is where we measure that from. So if you're on a cul-de-sac and you measure where the house sits back. The width. Mayor Chmiel: The homes being located within the cul-de-sac and setback — requirements. Kate Aanenson: You can go back another. . . Mayor Chmiel: You're saying it 's only going to be, where does the footprint go from that point? Once, well we don't know yet but that probably shows some of them there. It has to be a 30 foot setback from the road in itself. -' Kate Aanenson: For the property line, right. Councilman Wing: For the boundary line? Councilman Senn: Which I've seen several already come through where we, I mean _ that 's a fairly standard condition on cul-de-sacs. Is that they don't. . . Kate Aanenson: Well curvature. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: Make sure I understood that . — Councilman Mason: So Councilman Wing, why are you against that? If you'd repeat that . 31 City Council Meeting - Fe -y 22, 1993 Councilman Wing: It 's just condensing down these, as I drive around and look at these, I don't like those lots that come in like this and suddenly your frontage is reduced down to nothing and then densities and the appearance of those lots are awkward and I don't like them. I'd like to see the full front footage on all these as much as we can. Councilman Mason: Now according to this, the density is not going to be changed to the project by this. Councilman Wing: No, but I'm looking at some of these lots and instead of coming in and focusing on the driveways and mailboxes and everything, it spreads this whole thing out and makes the density look less. Kate Aanenson: I was going to say. We just looked at too, they're still exceeding the 90 foot which would be our standard. Even the ones they're requesting variances on I guess. Rick Sathre: Your Honor, Councilmember Wing. I'm not sure I heard you. You're lmim talking about. Lot 13 that has the neck on it? Councilman Wing: Just item 14. Variance to the lot width requirements. Rick Sathre: Alright . So it 's all of them. Councilman Wing: It 's not 14 thru 25. . . Kate Aanenson: Right . We'll probably be showing the setback. Rick Sathre: What we're really asking for is, we're fully complying with the area requirements. In order to meet the width requirements we'd have to add more blacktop and that doesn't seem to serve any good purpose. Councilman Senn: I like the area requirements I see on these lots. Some of them we've been seeing lately come all the way down to the minimum or whatever we said. Mayor Chmiel : Yeah. Okay. Can I have a motion for the preliminary plat review. Councilman Senn: I move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Other discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Preliminary Plat $93-i for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated January S, 1993, with variances and the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 12 City Council Meeting - Fgbruary 22, 1993 3 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District , ONR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department , and MWCC. 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100 year storm event , 24 hour duration, and will discharge at the pre-developed runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. The applicant — shall not place fill material below the 100 year flood elevation of Lake St . Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. Bonestroo has determined that the 100 year flood elevation is 947.0. Staff _ is working with the Watershed District to resolve where the 100 year flood elevation is located. The applicant 's engineer shall review the possibilty of consolidating the two storm water rentention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant , Mr . Ismael Martinez, as outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control . Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of the slope adjacent to Lake St . Joe. In cases where the side slopes exceed — 200 feet in depth from the toe of the slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas distrubed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. — 6. All acess points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat . 7. The applicant shall place a sign on a barrier at the end of the southerly street extension indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" . Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each lot . All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. B. The applicant and staff from Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for future street extension to the west to serve the City of 33 City council Meeting - Fet ry 22, 1993 Am. Victoria through one of the phases of development. 9. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90-15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development . — 10. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. 11. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. 12. Approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria. 13. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 14. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1, for the following reasons: a. F'l lots abutting Lake St . Joe meet the 125 foot lot width, only lots not adjacent to the lake are recommended for .a variance. b. Requirement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement will nc,t affect the density of the project . c . Ths mr„1P:.:'s shoreland regulations are inappropriate when applied within t`e retro area. 15. with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Mir,nswa- h+.a Parkway and the requirement of one tree per lot . 16. The evistinc dock on Lake St . Joe from the Boley property shall be removed. • 17. Additional landscaping shall be added on riparian lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING TRAIL AND LAND DEDICATION. FIRST READING. Todd Hoffman: Mr . Mayor, City Council members. In light of all the talk about controls and gaining more control, I'm pleased to bring to you two issues this evening. Unfortunately on item 5(a), the amendment to the subdivision code, it 's not that we're gaining a whole lot of ground. It 's simply that we're solidifying what has not been in the ordinance to date but what we have been asking developers. So the following explanations are given for those proposed amendments. Being to subparagraph (a), simply a clarification. Adding trail fund to description. Previously it said park fund. Subparagraph (j), the existing subparagraph fails to address those situations when land in lieu of dedication feez or a combination thereof is desired as a part of a commercial/ indu_.trial development . The standards of 10% of market value or 10't of gross 34 CITY O F 3, _ 0 cnANHAssrx PC DATE: 4/19/95 `,\, CC DATE: 5/8/95 CASE #: 95-3 SPR STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to replat 2.2 Acres from Outlot B and Block 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds 4th Addition and a Site Plan Review for a 70 unit Senior Housing complex z LOCATION: North of Santa Vera Drive, West of Kerber Boulevard and East of V Powers Boulevard - 11APPLICANT: Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority a.. 500 Pine, Suite 300 Q Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R12, Planned Unit Development High Density Residential ACREAGE: 2.12 acres DENSITY: Average density 9.6 units/acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Single Family S - PUD-R12, High Density Residential - Q E - Kerber Boulevard W -PUD-R12, High Density Residential — WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has steep slopes on the north side of the property. It is devoid of vegetation. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density Residential �;'- v■ �" mayWroyilW Patio :f . • ® Milt! }5 —1• tr_;S k •' aft r,1 2�.i,; i mom!.-.1 givAi low t•-.A04.7-.��-:=` - �� a.,II I` rr NLS r �t��-L' rel ;r8PV Ilik le16'. i;liaPflitell 7'''`.4 1 '- iqrf * 0 R4 Un 46 a/ :101:a-" -1• it 44i0i-Aii-; -e gi4b:. lrfr"..--";k'7,4 %Al 1 ris fik:----- ft*4.ifig i 1 ii in Sud c� d , ''11 ' �� W�O .. MEI .©Imo ammingra • " 1 „Ad .••• vlur4 .... . ...i .. 1110 MI .1 Mil NM =Mil A Era" R 1 : :�� ;r iInII, 111111111 �:r:�:. ■■.../1 440:-...4 : cam; raw 1 URI BG k RMIS gam an ® iitia!s . - ; _ _..do moltCB "PA El ` MIN 11-/- j; U . ; I� A ST A vii ospe 1v‘(). d 1%- .- -__A_R-7---,i, Ilite..."*31114 caliotilf 0 pe,--- DRIVE f !WA— - � ) �,*1�� WO •*1 /ie' i 4 A ..mta „All . ..: ! \ot . : 7 7 We)V _ ,. 40 ,.'71i r._ PARKit$e,i•., SU • • e Wbmti . A ' S. 41111,31*---", -- . • 'i.. ifrAiViti , lalk � .i► ♦ 111\ �• SVT) �,,,.�© ee�i,tp: ��_-\ CIRCLEI . . UD-1 Q .ti►. 4I c vi ai _��. LAKE SUSAN ) r 1-I �' •.G =�c'41�; MIA air =C '/ �, I-MISSION HI jr, n pRIVE ,u . o � 6IFA .. , s RD - � ♦ z � ° = ins nit t- 44) 114 Liiai► S ,/;--,--•_..,---,______E_;__,_ i* .FE pgovute-.- \ I \ . ''1111%ISA* g 'W-4 011110, ;gyp� �► r.aii • . � a ` l `•). : �I I �%RA !! /��' ' v Colli �I — plow ISN Ys�ip�. , �� FAST Eig.vesiltioniV4 a... ,, A• I /I , WEST a R� trii) do lowiib Ai illiv Vain COURT Alike a * ' � • .. iii i �jz .2 � 3E# -1001. *van few cis, ot.k.,' 44/MI 114.. 7'11. t 1 11 _ Oak Ponds 4th Addition April 19, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting preliminary plat and site plan approval to construct a senior housing building which is proposed to include 70 units. The total square footage of the building will amount to 84,145 square feet. The units are proposed to be rental units and will _ include 48 one bedroom, 19 one bedroom and a den, and 3 two bedroom units. Parking for the apartments will be accommodated in an underground structure. Due to the life style of the residents, staff does not anticipate more than one parking space per unit will be necessary. — In researching this project, staff and the Senior Commission visited numerous Senior Housing complexes and learned that no more than one parking space per unit is used. The zoning ordinance requires one enclosed parking space per unit. However, it specifically states that in — the case of senior housing, the city may apply a decreased parking requirement. Staff will recommend that the proposed parking layout be adopted. The housing project is proposed to be constructed on Outlot B and Blocks 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition. Outlot B and — Blocks 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition were designated as high density sites as part of the Oak Ponds PUD approval. On April 10, 1995, the City Council approved a transfer of density to allow a maximum of 70 units to be built on the subject site. This transfer resulted — in less units located within the westerly portion of the site and additional units placed on the northeast corner of the site. The building and the grounds surrounding the building are proposed to be maintained by a management company. The overall density for the entire Planned Unit Development, including the townhouses located to the west and south of the subject property, is 9.6 units per acre. The PUD — ordinance allows clustering of units as long as the overall density remains below that which is permitted on the site. The underlying zoning permits 12 units per acre. The 2.2 acre site is located north of Santa Vera Drive, west of Kerber Boulevard and east of Powers Boulevard. Access will be provided via a driveway off of Santa Vera Drive which will lead to the main lobby area, and a second access off of Kerber Boulevard will direct cars — to the underground parking. The site is currently zoned PUD-R12, High Density Residential and utilities are available for the area. As mentioned earlier, this proposal includes 70 units. The building was designed in three, and four story stepped, wood frame structures, with an underground parking garage. Exterior materials will be a combination of brick and vinyl no maintenance siding and an asphalt shingle roof. Louvers on gable ends, chimneys, overhangs with columns to define the entrance, and decks will be provided. There are two regulations which influence the development of this site. A PUD contract and R-12 zoning district regulations. The PUD contract has specific conditions which must be — followed with the development of each phase of the PUD. The development is also subject to the R-12 zoning district, unless otherwise specified in the PUD contract. Oak Ponds 4th Addition April 19, 1995 Page 3 — The proposed 70 units result in a density of 31.8 units/acre. However, as mentioned earlier, the overall density of the Oak Ponds Planned Unit Development is 9.6 units/acre. The — impervious surface coverage is 41%, however, this number does not include Outlot G, which was dedicated to the City as part of the Oak Ponds First Addition. Therefore, the hard surface coverage is not as high as shown. The PUD R-12 zoning district standards permits a maximum of 50%. The site is devoid of vegetation. The proposed landscaping plan is well within planting — requirements. Staff will recommend some changes to the landscaping plan. Staff is recommending park and trail, site plan and subdivision application, building permit, and sewer and water connection fees be waived as this is a public project. Staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions outlined in the report. —' BACKGROUND The City Council gave preliminary PUD and Site Plan approval to the "Oaks" development on December 14, 1992. The final plat included 7 outlots and the entire right-of-way for the extension of Santa Vera Drive and Powers Boulevard. The total number of units approved on the site was 209. Outlot A was the first phase of this development. It included 8 buildings, with each building having 8 units. Outlots B and D were replatted into Oak Ponds 2nd Addition. It included 7 buildings for a total of 57 units. This phase included a mixture of 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 plexes. — Outlots E and F were replatted into Oak Ponds 3rd Addition. It included 13 buildings for a total of 51 units. This phase include a mixture of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 plexes. — BACKGROUND Approximately five years ago, the City undertook an open-ended study with no preconceived ideas. The results indicated a definite need for Senior Housing. The City then took this a step further and conducted a Senior Housing feasibility study to ensure the need exists. The — results showed a deficiency in senior housing in the Chanhassen area. It also indicated that most elderly are being forced to move out of the City if they can no longer maintain their current homes. The city investigated 13 sites in the city. After two years of investigation, the list was narrowed to three sites (the parcel occupied by Byerly's, the parcel east of Americana Community Bank, and the subject site). The Byerly's site is no longer available, and the parcel adjacent to Americana Community Bank is adjacent to the Twin Cities — Western Railroad. There are a minimum of five train trips per day on this line, at different hours of the day and night. The site would be unsuitable for senior housing. The subject site _ Oak Ponds 4th Addition April 19, 1995 Page 4 is ideal for senior housing. It is within walking distance from all the amenities within downtown, such as Byerly's, Festival, Target, Senior Center, Post Office, City Center Park, clinics, etc. The city began working with Carver County HRA to put together the proposal before you today. SITE PLAN APPROVAL General Site Plan/Architecture The site is 2.2 acres with a gross density of 31.8 units/acre. However, as mentioned earlier, the overall density of the Oak Ponds Planned Unit Development is 9.6 units/acre. The 9.6 units per acre is under the allowed PUD density of 12 units per acre and the R-12 ordinance of 12 units/acre. The applicant is proposing to develop this site with 70 units. The total square footage of the building will amount to 84,145 square feet. The units are proposed to be rental units and will include 48 one bedroom, 19 one bedroom and a den, and 3 two bedroom units. Parking for the apartments will be accommodated in an underground structure. Due to the age of the residents, staff does not anticipate more than one parking space per unit will be necessary. In researching this project, staff and the Senior Commission visited numerous Senior Housing complexes and learned that no more than one parking space per unit is needed. The zoning ordinance requires one enclosed parking space per unit. However, it specifically states that in the case of senior housing, the city may apply a decreased parking requirement. Staff will recommend that the proposed parking layout be approved. Fourteen visitor parking spaces are provided at ground level. The current plan reflects 18 visitor parking spaces; however, the applicant revised the surface parking area to address safety concerns. A sketch plan of the review layout is attached (#5). The housing project is proposed to be constructed on Outlot B and Blocks 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition. Outlot B and Blocks 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition were designated as high density sites as part of the Oak Ponds PUD approval. The building and the grounds surrounding the building are proposed to be maintained by a management company. The 2.2 acre site is located north of Santa Vera Drive, west of Kerber Boulevard and east of Powers Boulevard. Access will be provided via a driveway off of Santa Vera Drive which will lead to the main lobby area and visitor parking area, and a second access off of Kerber Boulevard will direct cars to the underground parking. The site is currently zoned PUD-R12, High Density Residential and utilities are available for the area. As mentioned earlier, this proposal includes 70 units. The building was designed in three, and four story stepped, wood frame structure, with an underground parking garage. Exterior materials will be a combination of brick and vinyl no maintenance siding and an asphalt Oak Ponds 4th Addition April 19, 1995 Page 5 _ shingle roof. Louvers on gable ends, chimneys, overhangs with columns to define the entrance, and decks will be provided. Staff is recommending that the applicant introduce — some variation along the east and west elevations, through the shape of windows or adding louvers. In general, the building will have a pleasant appearance. The building will have a maximum height of 44.75 feet. — There are two regulations which influence the development of this site. A PUD contract and R-12 zoning district regulations. The PUD contract has specific conditions which must be — followed with the development of each phase of the PUD. The development is also subject to the R-12 zoning district, unless otherwise specified in the PUD contract. The proposed 70 units result in density of 31.8 units/acre. However, as mentioned earlier, the overall density of the Oak Ponds Planned Unit Development is 9.6 units/acre. The impervious surface coverage is 41%, however, this number does not include Outlot G, which — was dedicated to the City as part of the Oak Ponds First Addition. Therefore, the hard surface coverage is not as high as shown. The PUD R-12 zoning district standards permits a maximum of 50%. — PRELIMINARY PLAT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL Lot/Density The applicant is proposing to replat 2.2 acres of property zoned PUD-R12 into one parcel to house a senior housing complex. The property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as High Density (8-16 Units/Acre). The subject sites are Outlot B and Block 5, 6, and 7 of Oak _ Ponds 2nd Addition from the Oak Ponds PUD and was created as a high density site. This portion was proposed to house rental housing. Through negotiations between the City and the applicant, staff proposed locating Senior Housing on Outlot B. The applicant was agreeable — to this proposal and was willing to revise the plans accordingly. Original plans showed 121 units to be located within Outlots D, E, and F. The current — proposal maintains the same number of units, however, it transfers densities within the site. This is permitted under the PUD ordinance. The density of the site is 31.8% units/acre (gross). The impervious surface coverage of the site is at 41.2%. The PUD contract stated that the density could not exceed 12 units/acre and that the impervious could not exceed 50%. As stated previously, this is consistent with the — PUD requirements. The building is maintaining a 20' setback form Santa Vera Drive. The PUD-R-12 zoning regulations requires a 30' setback from Santa Vera Drive. There are no internal setbacks. — Oak Ponds 4th Addition April 19, 1995 Page 6 COMPLIANCE TABLE Ordinance Project Proposal Hard Surface Coverage 50% 41.8% Setback from collector 50 feet 35 feet* Internal Public Street 30 feet 20 feet* external property line 30 feet 20 feet* Internal Private Streets NA NA Overall Density 12 units 9.6 units * Building setbacks do not meet the PUD ordinance requirements. The applicant must adjust the plans and bring the building into compliance. LANDSCAPING A landscape plan for Oak Ponds 4th Addition has been submitted by the applicant. The site is void of any existing trees or vegetation. According to ordinance, a 15% canopy coverage is required for such sites. The applicant's coverage surpasses the required percent and also meets minimum landscape standards for open vehicular use and parking lot areas. The landscape plan includes a respectable diversity of plant materials and sizes. An increase in canopy on the west side of the site, however, would conserve energy by providing the greatest amount of shade in the summer. It would also benefit the residents by attractively screening the rear of neighboring apartments. Canopy coverage could also be increased on the east side of the site by the parking lot to reduce heat and glare in the summer and soften the appearance of the parking lot. Revegetation of ground cover on the site will be especially important for the reduction and elimination of erosion and run-off on the steep slope of the north side of the site. The City recommends utilizing seed blankets on the hill to assist in establishing vegetation as quickly as possible and stabilizing the hillside. Native vegetation is preferred by the City on the northern slope. A mix of native grasses and shrubs, such as sumac, will help slow runoff considerably and benefit the site aesthetically. WETLANDS Oak Ponds 4th Addition April 19, 1995 Page 7 — An ag-urban wetland exists just northwesterly of the site. The City has utilized this ponding area in the past for stormwater retention and stormwater quality purposes. During construction of the Oak Ponds development, the developer has employed the use of a temporary sediment basin to pretreat stormwater runoff prior to discharging into the ag-urban wetland. According to the City's Wetland Inventory, this pond is considered an ag-urban — wetland and therefore a buffer strip of 0-20 with an average of 10 feet must be maintained. Upon review of the grading plan, site grading will not be any closer than 75 feet from the edge of the wetland. - ACCESS Access to the site is proposed from Santa Vera Drive and Kerber Boulevard. Driveway access from Kerber Boulevard is proposed to access the underground garage facility while the driveway access point from Santa Vera is used to access the upper parking area assumed to be for visitors and a drop off or loading zone. Both access points should be increased to 26- foot wide driveways with 20-foot wide radiuses to accommodate turning movements. We also recommend adding street lighting in the vicinity of the curb access points to improve visibility for turning movements into the site. The curb access on Santa Vera Drive and Kerber Boulevard will intersect existing concrete sidewalks. Both driveway accesses will _ need to incorporate pedestrian ramps to facility the sidewalk. The proposed driveway access from Kerber Boulevard will also be in conflict with an existing street light. The street light will need to be relocated by the applicant to one side or the other of the driveway access. This street light will also accommodate the illumination of the access point as well. GRADING & DRAINAGE The entire site has been previously graded in conjunction with the Oak Ponds 2nd and 3rd phases. Additional grading is proposed to facilitate the building, parking areas and berming. _ The applicant is proposing to grade into the City's right-of-way along Kerber Boulevard. The applicant should be aware of an existing watermain located in the west boulevard of Kerber Boulevard which needs to maintain 712 feet of cover. In addition, street lights are randomly — placed along Kerber Boulevard which will need to be avoided or relocated as a part of site grading. The plans incorporate the use of retaining walls on the site over the northwesterly corner of the building and the easterly portion of the upper parking lot area. The retaining walls range from two to eleven feet in height. The 11-foot retaining wall proposed in the northwest — corner of the building. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height will need to be engineered per building codes. As a result of the site grading, the existing landscaping previously planted by the Oak Ponds developer will need to be transplanted accordingly. — _ Oak Ponds 4th Addition April 19, 1995 Page 8 Erosion control measures are not shown on the plans and need to be. The applicant has provided a note indicating "erosion control fencing already exists around most of the site. Modifications and additions will be installed as needed." The plans should incorporate a perimeter of erosion control fence (Type I) along the west, east and south, and the northerly portion of the slope should be protected with the Type III erosion control which may or may not be already installed. During construction, rock construction entrances should be employed at the access point to the site. Staff recommends that the access points be limited to the actual curb cuts as proposed. It is unclear whether or not excess material will be generated from the site grading. The applicant should be aware that they will need to submit a haul route for all materials being imported or exported from the site for review and approval by the City. The utility plan proposes a catch basin to convey stormwater runoff from the lower driveway off Kerber Boulevard. The plans do not propose any other storm sewer system to convey the upper parking lot runoff. Staff requests additional information on how the upper level parking lot will drain. As a part of the overall site development of the Oak Ponds — development (Phases I, II, and III), a comprehensive storm drainage plan was designed and implemented to convey stormwater runoff to pretreatment basins located adjacent to the wetlands on the north side of the parcel. It appears part of the site will now drain easterly to Kerber Boulevard connecting to the existing storm sewer system. The Kerber Boulevard storm sewer system drains easterly underneath Kerber Boulevard into the Chanhassen Pond Park directly east of Kerber Boulevard. Staff believes that this drainage alternative may be feasible with the implementation of the stormwater quality basin located downstream in the park property. This should be further developed and explored with City staff and the applicant prior to final plat approval. Detailed stormwater calculations for a 10-year and 100- - year storm event, at 24-hour duration, will need to be submitted to the City for review and approval. The sites has previously been charged the Surface Water Management Fee and therefore no additional fees will be required as part of this submittal. UTILITIES The site is serviced by municipal sewer and water from Santa Vera and Kerber Boulevard. The plans propose to utilize the existing sanitary sewer service stub from Santa Vera and water stubouts for hydrant placements on the site from both Kerber Boulevard and Santa Vera Drive. Oak Ponds 4th Addition April 19, 1995 Page 9 — RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to replat 2.2 acres — from Oudot B and Block 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds 4th Addition and Site Plan Review #95-3 for a 70 Unit Senior Housing Building as shown on the plans dated March 20, 1995 and subject to the following conditions: — 1. The Senior Housing Building shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached renderings. Introduce some variation along the east — and west elevations through the shape of windows and adding louvers. 2. Fire Marshal conditions: — a. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be deterred after revised site plans are submitted and reviewed. b. A ten foot clear space must maintained around fire hydrants. Fire hydrant locations are acceptable. — c. The driving surface over the below ground parking garage must be designed to _ support the weight regulations of the Fire Department aerial platform truck. Weight requirements are available from the Fire Marshal. — 3. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval detailed storm drainage calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm event at 24-hour duration. Individual storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event between catch basin segments will — also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for relocating the existing landscaping and street lights — and replacing any sidewalks impacted by the site construction. 5. The applicant shall provide a detailed erosion control plan in accordance to the City's — Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall include rock construction entrances, erosion control fences, and revegetation schedules. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate the storm sewer improvements proposed with the site — development. In addition, the plans shall maintain 71/2 feet of cover over the watermain along Powers Boulevard. _ Oak Ponds 4th Addition April 19, 1995 Page 10 6. The driveway aisles should be increased to 26-foot wide, face-to-face of curb, with 20- foot radiuses. In addition, the driveway curb cuts will need to incorporate pedestrian ramps to facilitate the existing sidewalks on Kerber Boulevard and Santa Vera Drive. 7. The storm drainage plan shall be revised to include storm drainage improvements for the upper parking area. 8. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height will need to be engineered per -- building codes. 9. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. the city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The applicant shall submit a letter to the City documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. 10. Existing and proposed erosion control fence shall be shown on the grading plan. Type I erosion control fence shall be employed along the west, east and south side of the site. Type III shall be maintained along the north side of the construction limits. All erosion control measures shall be maintained until the site is fully revegetated and removal is authorized by the City. 11. Construction access to the site shall be limited to the proposed curb cuts. Rock construction entrances shall be maintained until the driveways have been paved. 12. Park and trail, site plan and subdivision application, building permit, and sewer and water connection fees be waived as this is a public project. _ 13. The applicant shall use a mix of native prairie grasses and shrubs such as sumac rather than sod along the northern slope. 14. The building shall be relocated to be consistent with the PUD compliance table: Hard Surface Coverage 41.8% Setback from collector 50 feet Internal Public Street 30 feet External property line 30 feet Internal Private Streets NA Overall Density 9.6 units Oak Ponds 4th Addition April 19, 1995 Page 11 — ATTACHMENTS 1. Location of unit on lot. 2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated April 6, 1995. 3. Memo from Mark Littfin dated April 6, 1995. 4. Memo from Jill Kimsal dated April 6, 1995. 5. Revised parking area. 6. Application and attachments. — 7. Notice of public hearing and property owners. 8. Senior Housing Concept Plan. 9. Preliminary plat dated March 20, 1995. — ce COMMUNITY 1BR 1BR 13R 13R SPACE ----!mom —IUP nnnuw -1 > w J ATRIUM (_„ VEST, ENTRY E-- H EXIT —4 PARKING - 70 CARS _ 4 13R UNITS PARKNG PLAN 111 4 UNITS TOTAL. T = C-_-_AN--:ASS7N SENIOR IHIOUSIING c: =, MN 70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING 3 NOVEMBER 1994 1BR + D 13R 13R 13R 1BR 13R N _13R -TI DM w I 1 GAMER 213R _. 13 ATM : w ROOM cr OFF, i LOBBY VEST. fd `4 TR, LOUNGE AIL 13R SUITE 13R 13R ____i 1BR 1 13R 1BR + ; 1 1BR STAIR 1 1BR + D 1BR + D 12 1BR UNITS - I 5 1BR + D UNITS 1 23R UNIT LHVI1 L ' PLAN 2 _ 18 UNITS TOTAL - 1' = 30'-0' id--::AN--AssIEN SEM®R FI®:,JSIING C._ _Ass1Gl 9 w 70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING -)3 NOVEMBER 1994 1BR + D 13R 13R 13R 1BR BR _13R + D ST❑. J - 13R 13R 2BR W • UM Li N LOUNGE TR, 13R 13R + D 13R 1BR 1BR 13R 13R + D 1BR STAIR 1BR + D 13R + D 13 13R UNITS 6 13R + D UNITS _ 1 2BR UNIT VHL 2 PLAN 3 20 UNITS TOTAL = C�� =HIEN SIEN]IOO HOUSING cHN 13YE1 V 9 MN V 70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING 3 NOVEMBER 1994 1s2' s" — \ I \ ce — 00+SSF 1BR 1BR 13R 1BR 1BR N - N I 1BR+D — STD. 1 3 R 1 3 R 2BR _ 875 SF UM w 960 SF - CC Q N LOUNGE \ TR. — 1BR 1BR+D 720 SF 910 SF — o 1BR 1BR N N 1BR 1BR - 1BR + D 1BR - STAIR 13 1BR UNITS - 6 13R + D UNITS 1 23R UNIT 1BR + D 1BR + D \ I , 20 UNITS TOTAL / 19'-2' 72'-2' 911-2" / / — fHVHL 3 PD AN C:4) 1' = 30'-0' 7 = �-:A. IE SI lIO -Iousll GG CCI_AN- IEN, MN 1 70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING \''� 3 NOVEMBER 1994 j u LIBRARY STOR. .- J W LOUNGE �- Q TR. ER 1BR + D 1BR 1BR 13R 13R 1BR + 1 13R STAIR < < 6 1BR UNITS 2 13R + D UNIT LEVEL 4 PLAN C5) 8 UNITS TOTAL T = 30'-0' CCS IEN SENIOR }ROUSING c: IGEN, MN -\\:3,0_NUNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING OVEMBER 1994 A CITYOF 0,,, CIIANHASSEN' .,i ;40., 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 y (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — 3 MEMORANDUM — TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official O. DATE: April 6, 1995 — SUBJECT: 95-8 SPR and 92-3 PUD (Carver County HRA, Sneior Housing) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAR 2 0 19 9 5, CHANHAS SEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application at this time. I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. g:'safety\sariaemos\plan\no comet CITY OF . CHANHASSEN 0 : 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: April 6, 1995 SUBJ: 70 Unit Senior Housing Planning Case 92-3 PUD and 95-8 Site Plan Review I have reviewed the site plan in order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division and have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements: 1. The driving surface over the below ground parking garage must be designed to support the weight requirements of the Fire Department's aerial platform truck. Weight requirements are available from the Fire Marshal. 2. Fire hydrant locations are acceptable. psafetykm1\923pud CITY OF \ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — MEMORANDUM _ TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Jill Kimsal, Forestry Intern DATE: April 6, 1995 SUBJ: Oak Ponds 4th Addition, Landscape Plan A landscape plan for Oak Ponds 4th Addition has been submitted by the applicant. The site is void of any existing trees or vegetation. According to ordinance, a 15% canopy coverage — is required for such sites. The applicant's coverage surpasses the required percent and also meets minimum landscape standards for open vehicular use and parking lot areas. The landscape plan includes a respectable diversity of plant materials and sizes. An increase in canopy on the west side of the site, however, would conserve energy by providing the greatest amount of shade in the summer. It would also benefit the residents by attractively screening the rear of neighboring apartments. Canopy coverage could also be increased on the east side of the site by the parking lot to reduce heat and glare in the summer and soften _ the appearance of the parking lot. Revegetation of ground cover on the site will be especially important for the reduction and elimination of erosion and run-off on the steep slope of the north side of the site. The City recommends utilizing seed blankets on the hill to assist in establishing vegetation as quickly as possible and stabilizing the hillside. Native vegetation is preferred by the City on the — northern slope. A mix of native grasses and shrubs, such as sumac, will help slow runoff considerably and benefit the site aesthetically. Dunbar Development Corporation April 6, 1995 Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaaf Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Senior Development Dear Sharmin: We met with Mark Littfin this morning to discuss a proposed revision to the surface parking area at the senior development with regard to fire, life safety concerns. I am enclosing a sketch of the revised parking layout (a copy was left with Mr. Littfin) . The plan was approved by Mr. Littfin and we will plan to incorporate _ this change in the site plan which will be presented during the Planning Commission meeting on April 18. The revised plan provides for 14 surface parking space and 70 garage parking spaces. Please let me know if further action should be taken at this time with regard to this change. Sincerely, Carole Kron Dunbar Development Rzc_:v .i) cc: Julie Frick APR - 7 1995 CITY OF C!1'NI-HASSEN 15 North 12th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 (612) 341-0005 FAX (612) 341-0327 N _ < \ _ \ — \\ r — • Cf. 020 , - I AAN* 0 `....4010•\ ,,- , -� / **' (,) \.. 4c v- \ i 0,.o ' I — A - -- \ 4---- . \ \ _ - OHE # b.,_ 9-9 \ PITH III= 30'-0„ _ GHPNR-RA E.H e-NI OR Mme. - \ N6, 45,., lii \ '\ �Q,k4-9 — V l, — 1.44‘,,,c\\\\,, \ 1 \ \„,c,. , • \ • 'N\ \ ... / \ °1p ,9\ s.t.J�O / op- ./ ( ‘ 0 ,,..ic.,- ----- 1 - / / Pb �_ / i 2 , --, ----":".„,_:----------- _ c, G G ' i i ,x. --->„_______- j ..- / . FAN RKIHC7 L., -VEL- PLAN 1n1:3o1_Ou _ -- c HA\H H SEH 'E1-11,o12_ i•-I�6,. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Carver County H . R . A . OWNER: See Attachment ADDRESS: 500 Pine , Suite 300 ADDRESS: Chaska , MN 55318 TELEPHONE (Day time) 448-7715 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11_ Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15 Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. x Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. X Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ waived per City of Chanhassen A Ilst of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. • Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Chanhassen Senior Housing LOCATION Kerber Blvd . and Santa Vera Drive LEGAL DESCRIPTION Outlot B and Blocks 5 , 6 and 7 , Oakponds — 2nd Addition ( existing ) New : Lot 1 , Block 1 , Oakponds 4th Addition PRESENT ZONING PUD — R12 REQUESTED ZONING same — PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION High Density Residential REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION same REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Site plan approval and replatting to allow construction of a 70 unit apartment building for senior citizens . This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party _ whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. — I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. - --vAJA. 7.J.',/uL4 nature of Appli9ant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date - Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. — The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Attachment to Development Application The City of Chanhassen has entered into a purchase agreement for the site. The City will lease _ the land to the Carver County H.R.A. for development of the senior apartment building. City Administrator Don Ashworth is managing the land purchase. is DOCVCAROLECIIANAPPIAM (4) f. Description of Intended Use The proposed development is designed for rental by senior citizens. The 70 unit building will be a three and four story stepped, wood frame structure,with an underground parking garage. Exterior materials will be a combination of brick and vinyl siding. The building will be fire sprinklered and include two elevators and many community spaces for the residents. (5)m. Proposed Fire Protection System The building will be serviced by a NFPA 13-R fire protection system make code requirements. HEDLUND - Planning Engineering Surveying Ms. Carole Kron Chanhassan HRA c/o Dunbar Development Corporation — RE:Oak Ponds 4TH Addition — Dear Ms .Kron : According to the City of Chanhassen tree preservation policy, no significant trees exist on the parcel of land to be replatted as Oak Ponds 4TH Addition. Sp-racer y, o&aitel-T 4,44(irJ David E. Lindgren Hedlund Engineering Services ,p • 9201 East Bloomington Freeway, Bloomington. Minnesota 55420, Telephone (612) 888-0289 rnriiicr= ii _. :Gli��_7-�c7 NUG7_ i-uw. J,., 1. 0711 W c - COMMUNITY PARTNERS ? N r (i R P ,1 4 . T r. — March 20, 1995 Ms . Carole Kron Dunbar Development Corporation 15 North 12th Street — Minneapolis, MN 55403 Re: Drainage Calculations Senior Housing Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear Ms. Kron: The original development plan for this property was a townhome project . The utilities including the storm drainage facilities for this townhome project were under construction at the time this property was purchased for the senior housing project. Therefore, the existing utilities will be utilized with minor adjustments to serve the senior housing project. The senior housing project is virtually identical to the townhome project in regards to impervious surface coverage of the site (approximately 0. 95 acres) . The storm water runoff characteristics and projections are therefore the same as the original townhome project which was approved for construction last year. A sediment basin is located to the northwest of the site which handles the storm water outletting from the storm sewer on the west side of the property. Due to the steep terrain and development plans, this location presented the best opportunity for the sediment basin and storm water ponding. The increased storm water runoff from the site for the 10 year and 100 year 24 hour rainfall events based upon Technical Release No. 55, Soil Conservation Service, U. S . Dept. of Agriculture is summarized below: 1) 10 Year, 24 Hour Rainfall Event, 4 . 20" Type B Soil Curve Number 69 (Existing Conditions) Curve Number 77 (Proposed Conditions) Additional Storm Water Runoff = 0. 57" = 4 , 550 cubic feet — oh:NTRAI. HLOCF: RUIUHNC 405 DIVISION STREET NORTHFIELD,MN 5505 7-201 9 FAX(507)645-6037 (507)645-6044 03: _1 '45 14:03 COMMITI' PI:IF T E'J INC. , 16123325425 I U.v52 az Page two 2) 100 Year, 24 Hour Rainfall Event, 6.00" Type B Soil Curve Number 69 (Existing Conditions) curve Number 77 (Proposed Conditions) Additional Storm Water Runoff = 0.77" = 6, 150 cubic feet The senior housing project will utilize these existing storm _ drainage facilities including the sediment basin and storm water pond constructed last year. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, _ 5A A R. Bruce R. Bullert Project Engineer MN Registration No. 11515 Dunbar Development Corporation April 4, 1995 Mr. Julie Frick Executive Director Carver County H.R.A. 500 Pine, Suite 300 Chaska, MN 55318 lir. Don Ashworth City Administrator City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter DRive P.U. Box 14/ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Senior Development Dear Julie and Don: Enclosed for your information please find a notice that was mailed today to neighbors within 500 feet of the project site regarding a presentation of the design concept on Thursday, April 13. Please give me a call if you have any questions concerning the meeting. Sincerely, Carole Kron 11(�— Dunbar Development Corporation enc cc: Sharnnin Al-Jaaf 15 North 12th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 (612) 341-0005 FAX (612) 341-0327 NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1995 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS You are invited to attend a presentation regarding tree senior housing development — proposed for Outlot B Oakponds 2nd Addition (northwest corner of Kerber Blvd. and Santa Vera Drive) to be held on Thursday, April 13, 1995 at 7:00 p.m at the City of Chanhassen Council Chambers. LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET MR. GREGORY W. MOURS DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTIC 7637 NICHOLAS WAY MR. DEAN R. JOHNSON MR. DEAN R. JOHNSON — CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8984 ZACHARY LANE 8984 ZACHARY LANE MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369-0028 MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369-002 MR. BRUCE A. AMUNDSON DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION MS. TRACY M. HANSON 7643 NICHOLAS WAY MR. DEAN R. JOHNSON 7647 NICHOLAS WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8984 ZACHARY LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 — MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369-0028 — MR. ANH TUYET LY DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION MR. EREYNA S. SZARKE 7649 NICHOLAS WAY MR. DEAN R. JOHNSON 7653 NICHOLAS WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8984 ZACHARY LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369-0028 MR. DOUGLAS J. HOLMGREN MR. CALVIN BRISTOW MR. DANIEL D. BULGER — 7655 NICHOLAS WAY 7659 NICHOLAS WAY 7661 NICHOLAS WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MR. WILLIAM R. HAGEMANN MR. THOMAS A. SAUE MS. MARGARET S. THOMPSON 7663 NICHOLAS WAY 7665 NICHOLAS WAY 7667 NICHOLAS WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MS. LAURA M. LUSSON MS. DONNA M. PFAFF MS. DEBORAH A. SCOTT 7669 NICHOLAS WAY 7671 NICHOLAS WAY 7673 NICHOLAS WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 • MR. ELTON G. KLUG MR. SHAWN A. BOUCHER MR. STEVEN J. LABERGE 7675 NICHOLAS WAY 7677 NICHOLAS WAY 7679 NICHOLAS WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 _ MS. PATRICIA A. PETERSON MR. CASEY POWELL MR. JOSEPH CLEVELAND 7681 NICHOLAS WAY 7683 NICHOLAS WAY 7685 NICHOLAS WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MR. BRENT J. CARLSON MR. MATTHEW J. MESENBURG MS. MONICA HANLEY _ 7687 NICHOLAS WAY 7689 NICHOLAS WAY 7691 NICHOLAS WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MR. CHAD LEA MS. LYDIA KIEBZAK MR. SCOTT GREBE 7693 NICHOLAS WAY 7695 NICHOLAS WAY 7697 NICHOLAS WAY -- Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MR. DAVID HESTER MR. GREG PETERSON MR. JAMES & ELISABETH MCVIC 7699 NICHOLAS WAY 7701 NICHOLAS WAY 7703 NICHOLAS WAY — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MR. ALAN LEE MR. PETER R. VOAS MS. JENNIFER M. PETERSON 7705 NICHOLAS WAY 7707 NICHOLAS WAY 7709 NICHOLAS WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MR. JEFF & DEBRA MILLER MS. NANCY JEAN METCALF MR. DAVID A. LARSON 7711 NICHOLAS WAY 7713 NICHOLAS WAY 7715 NICHOLAS WAY Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MS. JOANNE K. SETEN MS. LORI CARSIK MR. JAMES & BARB LUGOWSKI 7717 NICHOLAS WAY 7719 NICHOLAS WAY 7721 NICHOLAS WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MR. CHARLES A. WALKER MR. JOHN MOBERG MS. PAULA LANGER _ 7723 NICHOLAS WAY 911 SANTA VERA DRIVE 913 SANTA VERA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MS. PATRICIA HAUCK MR. DAVID MEHL MR. MARK BERGER 915 SANTA VERA DRIVE 917 SANTA VERA DRIVE 923 SANTA VERA DRIVE — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MR. TIMOTHY JONES MS. BETH TRAVER TERESITA BRIGINO 925 SANTA VERA DRIVE 927 SANTA VERA DRIVE 929 SANTA VERA DRIVE Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — MS. CHRISTINA ALTHAUSER MS. JEANNE H. EGEM TRAECY WALDSCHMIDT 933 SANTA VERA DRIVE 935 SANTA VERA DRIVE 937 SANTA VERA DRIVE Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MS. CONSTANCE L. COOK MS. COLLEEN HEALY MS. SUSAN CONZET — 939 SANTA VERA DRIVE 945 SANTA VERA DRIVE 947 SANTA VERA DRIVE Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MR. JOHN LINDEN MR. LARRY A. ZAMOR MR. PHILIP GLEASON 949 SANTA VERA DRIVE 951 SANTA VERA DRIVE 955 SANTA VERA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MR. STEPHANIE PIKARSKI MS. BETH HAYES MS. MARY R. FISCHER 957 SANTA VERA DRIVE 959 SANTA VERA DRIVE 961 SANTA VERA DRIVE - CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MR. BRUCE FRANSON MR. CYNTHIA L. YORKS MS. LURETTA LARSON 967 SANTA VERA DRIVE 969 SANTA VERA DRIVE 971 SANTA VERA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - MR. BRUCE BEATY DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTIC 973 SANTA VERA DRIVE MR. DEAN R. JOHNSON MR. DEAN R. JOHNSON CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8984 ZACHARY LANE 8984 ZACHARY LANE MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369-0028 MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369-002 MS. JOAN FOSTER MR. CRAIG HALLETT - 981 SANTA VERA DRIVE 983 SANTA VERA DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 r .v■ i) `C)' d) .m. 111;4 I ■■ % oma iie - NOTICE OF PUBLIC L �.1 ` HEARING R4 = ©�.�!,� k vi zu. PLANNING COMMISSION , �� �� r MEETING W 011 ' ,,o �_,._ 0 Wednesday, APRIL 19, 1995 " ,,, la W at 7• .00 p.m. r.. , .. a EA City Hall Council Chambers R 1 2 ..01 _®, ' 690 Coulter Drive NI yy. BG .. E Project: Senior Housing Project Oak Ponds 4th Addition # f `ll UD Developer: Carver County HRA ��� a.o ► Ya Location: North of Santa Vera Drive Iil Ct. West of Kerber Blvd. . i WE RN % ' f Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority proposing a preliminary plat of — Outlot B and Blocks 5, 6, 7, of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds 4th Addition and site plan review of a 70 unit senior housing building. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following — steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. _ 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you — choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 6, 1995. MS BERNICE BILLISON Agnes Anderson Vi Bender 7281 PONTIAC CIRCLE 6470 Oriole Avenue 4569 Aspenwood Trail Excelsior, MN 55331 Minnetonka, MN 55345 K._ 6) /.0 Ms. Muriel Bowker SHEROL BROOKS HOWARD 440 Chanview 1005 PONTIAC LANE 41/4).. Apt. 1 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jo and Allan Chatterton Elizibeth and Paulin Clench Mildgrad Dittman — 425 Chan Veiw 1338 Ravenwood Circle 3113 Highway 101 South Apt 321 Waconia, MN 55387 Wayzata, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Emma Earnst Mae Ernst Ms. Iren Fayn 489 Chan View 425 Chan View 2400 Nevard Avenue South Chanhassen, MN 55317 Apt 103 Apt. 313 Chanhassen, MN 55317 St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Mr. Dave Fink Valarie Frank Allan Grow 12615 Cedar Lake Road 711 Canastoga Trail 420 Chan View #303 — Minnetonka, MN 55305-3945 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — BARBARA HEADLA SELDA HEINLEIN Theodota Hess 6870 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 420 CHAN VIEW 110340 Geske Road EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Apt. 202 Chaska, MN 55318 _ Mr. & Mrs. Birney Hill Ms. Betty Hussman Iva Johnson 10405 45th Avenue North 1100 Anderson Lakes Parkway 420 Chanview Apt. 204 Apt. 105 Apt. 302 _ Plymouth, MN 55442 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chanhassen, MN 55317 JANE KUBTTZ MARK LITTFIN Shirley & Don Livingston — 7492 SARATOGA DRIVE 7609 KIOWA AVE 2621 Orchard Lane CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Ms. Faith Majhor Betty and Earl McAllister Dorothy McIntyre 6165 Concord Hill Lane 7510 Erie Avenue 110340 Geske Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Apt. 204 Chaska, MN 55318 BARBARA MONTGOMERY Helen Neilson Mr. Jack Nelson 7017 DAKOTA AVENUE 425 Chan View 2800 Pacific View Drive _ CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Apt. 117 Corona Delmar, CA 92625 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Anita O'Neill Mr. Glen Oberg ALBIN OLSON 7114 Pontiac Circle 489 Chanview 406 SANTA FE CIRCLE — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Apt. 303 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lee Plante Paul Proceviat Vi Schauer 8935 Cedar Avenue South 2219 Boulder Road 110340 Geske Road Apt. 214 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Apt. 316 — Bloomington, MN 55425 Chaska, MN 55318 Marion Stultz Mr. Floyd Tapper Lellian Taylor 110340 Geske Road 632 Santa Vera Drive P.O. Box 263 Apt 203 Chanhassen, MN 55317 440 Chan View #5 Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Marie Veches Ms. Ione Wendt Mike Winen — 4071 Kings Road 440 Chanview 420 Chanview Excelsior, MN 55331 Apt. 9 Apt. 301 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — ENTERPRISE PROPERTIES TIMOTHY J & JOAN BODE KARL & MARY ROLLAR 11900 WAYZATA BLVD #208 785 SANTA VERA 7550 CHIPPEWA TRAIL _ MINNETONKA MN 55343-5358 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - DAVID & DEBRA RUGG CURRENT RESIDENT KIP A HANSON 7560 CHIPPEWA TRAIL 7570 CHIPPEWA TRAIL 7580 CHIPPEWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - JEFFREY GJERSVIK THEODORE LUGOWSKI ROBERT M STARK - 7591 CHIPPEWA TRAIL 7571 CHIPPEWA TRAIL 725 SANTA VERA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SHELARD PLAZA COMPANY CURRENT RESIDENT DAVID LEMKE _ SHELARD DEVELOPMENT CO 751 CHIPPEWA CIRCLE 7500 CHIPPEWA TRAIL 1025 SHELARD TOWER CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426 CURRENT RESIDENT TIMOTHY & DANA BOLLIG BRIAN & DIANE LIPSIUS 7520 CHIPPEWA TRAIL 7540 CHIPPEWA TRAIL 740 SANTA VERA DRIVE - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - ROBERT REYNOLDS HANS & MAVIS SKALLE JOHN LAUX 760 SANTA VERA DR 780 SANTA VERA DR 790 SANTA VERA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 _ ECKANKAR MICHAEL & JULIE LINDELIEN KENNETH WOLTER P 0 BOX 27300 7610 CANYON CURVE 7600 CANYON CURVE NEW HOPE MN 55427 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DALE & BETH LARSON GREG&CYNTHIA HROMATKA JACK & DIANE THIEN - 7590 CANYON CURVE 7580 CANYON CURVE 7570 CANYON CURVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL & MARY HENKE TIMOTHY J ANDERSON DAVID & JANE CALLISTER 7560 CANYON CURVE 7550 CANYON CURVE 7540 CANYON CURVE - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -GREGG & MICHELLE GESKE KELLY REDLIN ROBT & KATHERINE BOHARA 7530 CANYON CURVE 7520 CANYON CURVE 7510 CANYON CURVE _ CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9033 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG & JANE JOHNSON DAVID & KAREN BRAMOW SCOTT A DILLON 7500 CANYON CURVE 7490 CANYON CURVE 7480 CANYON CURVE — CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Johansson Builders, Inc. JEFFREY & RONDA HIGGINS LYNN LORD 7470 Canyon Curve 7541 CANYON CURVE 7531 CANYON CURVE Chanhassen, MN 55317-9033 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 — JAMES & PATRICIA ANN RUSS NICK & SUSAN WIERZBINSKI MARK & CINDY SCHALLOCI 7521 CANYON CURVE 7511 CANYON CURVE 7501 CANYON CURVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK CVETNIC JEFF & S MCCOSKEY JOHN M III & JEAN LINFORT' 7491 CANYON CURVE 7481 CANYON CURVE 7471 CANYON CURVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 West Village Townhouses RICHARD S BROSE ETAL Laura Lusson P. O. Box 88 C/O T F JAMES COMPANY 7669 Nicholas Way — Rosemount, MN 55068-0088 P 0 BOX 24317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55424 Donna Rfaff Deborah Scott Elton & Lois Klug 7671 Nicholas Way 7673 Nicholas Way 7675 Nicholas Way _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Current Resident William & Maryanne Hagemann Margaret Thompson 7659 Nicholas Way 7663 Nicholas Way 7667 Nicholas Way Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Alan P. Lee Jeanne Etem Tracy Waldschmidt — 7705 Nicholas Way 935 Santa Vera Drive 937 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Walter & Mary Tellegen Mark & Sandra Berger John & Janice Moberg — Constance Cook 923 Santa Vera Drive 911 Santa Vera Drive 939 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Paula Langer Patricia Hauck David & Amy Mehl 913 Santa Vera Drive 915 Santa Vera Drive 917 Santa Vera Drive — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bruce Gordon & Suzanne Beaty Philip & Dawn Gleason Stephanie Pikarski 973 Santa Vera Drive 955 Santa Vera Drive 957 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - Gerald Oberlander & Beth Hayes Mary Fischer Colleen Healy 959 Santa Vera Drive 961 Santa Vera Drive 945 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Susan Conzet John & Michelle Linden Larry Zamor — 947 Santa Vera Drive 949 Santa Vera Drive 951 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Andrew & Christina Althauser Joan Foster Craig & Beth Hallett _ 933 Santa Vera Drive 981 Santa Vera Drive 983 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bruce Franson Cynthia Yorks Luretta Larson 967 Santa Vera Drive 969 Santa Vera Drive 971 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF PC DATE: 1/4/95 \� ' G C UA!H \\� A S S E CC DATE:1/23/95 CASE #: 94-22 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 2.22 Acres into 4 single family lots, Golden Glow Acres Z LOCATION: West of Powers Boulevard and approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard V APPLICANT: James G. Ravis 6660 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 CL _. PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District ACREAGE: 2.22 acres DENSITY: 1.8 Units per Acre 1.87 Units per Acre-Net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family S - RSF, Residential Single Family E - RSF, Residential Single Family, Powers Boulevard W - RSF, Residential Single Family QWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. Li PHYSICAL CHARACTER. The site contains a single family home and a garage. A wetland occupies the southwesterly edge of the site. Mature trees of different species occupy the northerly and easterly portion of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) U fl O O L p O p O p O I o tco I . • : . • • • _ I ■ :i,: �..i.zyrig' MI", LAKE 1141rA a r cL. Al illik :1: liffir IZilkl=d1 ME 1'10'4 -R- 1,r? t.,1174 ;-1 OM !.Wtt*t __ OMB MOTU Mk iitima IL ti • ,,,._ _. FARMS ,sem,4211 i . • li il Ilir1rtr.vtw, v ,/ �a PARK ♦ ,� i+� ..' . A ,41AAI II �' 01 ic���r���1����'��' � ��t2' isTal t ted Ewe 41147. 4174 4., in b �� - rIAP �` �` •�•� ' dild. (Air .4tt MP 1 -117 -41- St 41I \ N4'(<I ���;: � � � f ■l■■a�n■ •'� ��• _ CARDER CA- R BEACH kkOOsS*;:. 1 . I '1-��tII ' i. Zft4Y4�•sHENaNDO• , �� /1PARK1�� - ` R ,f�,��J� ///// CIRCLE , � ?I ��� Ir.1 — t % - --- o muivi: ■L.a .; VIOLET .-;-/- 1( rt./4.•.. .. ROAD may_ �0 i : 3: Ufa � JI4��� � • ,__j___-, `. 70E13 '�in :l� �,� [tea , R.... :� ,+� Q ft..0.4 . � ))),-- ' .. ,, .,, -_ . _, ',Afitasso *luta Oh r-Pui.. 1 w'v. "0 's \___,./ LAKE Luc Y ®l' , A ommu rtt4;i4.•-gt F srmr, T‘v44. •--..-- , - •� s 5 ;;_ (A' -4. die _r�.f���.o ° r R \ _ R D f IIVita : �� rAitt - . 4 - 4/E/16 NEN – — I a EL iti 1" 41044- is . 110*o - '�R um \ i) i *nu _ IN ,„,,, ma.: ... Ilix40 it Illg ►� lla1-• `�� ' g3ui `'.l!� ..r:�c�►• a�I,�i. lll��• _ •. ,, SHORES. . �•.•....,•;• x'41 ii '�!©O 0.10e1 III! PARK sTrziti7Ti i I!4!I&tVdii� ', s _ ' 11� :��,� !tea'��'� ������44111/' �•�, MEA DOW atli 1©�. El v 11 Q�� LAKE AVN I : GREEN PARK �'w.• ♦��� • a"a w jill*,,,o, ', ,1141121:1-1i RD --- Si, 4,„. ___:-.iveire i_o- Eta 1. Aon ; r� 3�.!11 10,,,,,,tr _ Iry . r . .k , -:. IL4KE or �.• _.,SIL. Olo 4al a y�.ti . .. IIII ANN ac po,_..��.�. l ; [L" �1� - PA ---K W , I.+ I -ati. MP.,II_ icn'I1AI a ,-.,�,�� ��' ` W �o : ...,:amu Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.22 acres into 4 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The average lot size is 23,304 square feet with a resulting net density of 1.87 units per acre. The site is located west of Powers Boulevard and approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. Access to the subdivision is proposed to be provided via a private street which will serve all four lots. There is a single family home on the existing parcel. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The site has a dense concentration of mature trees along its northerly portion. The applicant has submitted a landscaping/reforestation plan. A preservation easement over the wooded areas along the north property line as well as the common lot line separating Lots 2 and 3, will be required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently preserving the trees. One of the main issues of concern is access to the site. Back in September of 1991 in conjunction with Lundgren's WillowRidge subdivision which lies directly to the west of this site, access and utility service to this site were explored. Utilities were extended to the west line of this site in conjunction with WillowRidge's development proposal. Access into the Ravis parcel from WillowRidge was another matter, however. The Ravis parcel does have frontage along Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) which allowed other alternatives to provide access to the Ravis property rather than WillowRidge. Staff concluded at that time a cul-de-sac from WillowRidge was not feasible. A cul-de-sac from Lundgren's WillowRidge would have involved losing a lot of trees and by the time the cul-de-sac was extended through to the Ravis property, there was very little property left to be developed. Staff has recently explored some other alternative development possibilities on the Ravis property and adjoining parcels. Attached is a memo that was sent to the residents lying south of Lake Lucy Road and west of Powers Boulevard (Attachment 1). This memo explores five alternatives to subdividing the neighborhood. Staff met with the residents regarding the alternative development proposals back on March 9, 1995. At that meeting there was numerous discussions pertaining to private driveway access points along Powers Boulevard as well as all of the options listed within the memo. The general consensus was that no one alternative could be completely agreed upon by all affected parcels. Staff did propose Option E as a viable option in developing the neighborhood, including the Ravis parcel. This alternative also provided the most flexibility for the other adjacent parcels to subdivide as well. The private driveway proposal, as submitted, limits access to only the Ravis parcel and no future access to the adjoining parcels. Staff feels that this area can and should be Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 3 _. developed under a different alternative which includes a public street. Therefore, at this time staff recommends that the subdivision as proposed be denied due to premature street access to development. If a private driveway was allowed to be constructed, the remaining parcels (Kohman and Infanger) will have limited subdivision potential, if any. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is premature. We are recommending that it be denied for reasons discussed in the staff report. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.22 acres into 4 single family lots. The property is — zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.87 units per acre net. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area with an average lot size of 23,304 square feet. A single-family residence currently occupies proposed Lot 1. This _ structure meets all zoning ordinance setback requirements. The site is located west of Powers Boulevard and approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. Access to the subdivision is proposed to be provided via a private street which will serve all four lots. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. WETLANDS The edge of a large ag-urban wetland touches the Ravis property and has been staked by a trained wetland delineator. A 0 to 20 foot wide buffer with an average 10 foot wide buffer will be maintained as required in the City's Wetland Ordinance. Staff requires a letter - documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland — ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before building construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. DRAINAGE Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) — The city has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, Golden Glow Acres — April 19, 1995 Page 4 — the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow — water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since there is no downstream water quality basin for this site these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding _ needed for the site. A credit for the one existing house/lot has been applied. The proposed SWMP quality charge has been calculated at $800/acre for single-family residential developments. This proposed development of 2.14 acres ess the existing home site on Lot 1 = .72 acres) would then be responsible for a water quality connection charge of 1.42 acres which equates to $1,136.00. This fee will be waived if the applicant constructs an appropriate sediment basin to pretreat the stormwater runoff from the site. The site drains to the southwest into the ag/urban wetland. Since this wetland is shown to receive all stormwater discharge including hard surface areas, staff recommends that a — sediment trap should be provided in accordance with the City's SWMP to pretreat the stormwater before it is discharged into the wetland. Staff recommends the applicant develop a storm water drainage plan to convey runoff from the driveways down to a stormwater — treatment pond. Detailed storm drainage calculations will be required for review and approval by the City prior to final plat. — Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for _ runoff storage. Since the SWMP does not propose any improvements on this site, the applicant should be required to pay the City the stormwater quantity charge. Single family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This proposed single-family residential development of 1.42 acres would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $2,811.60. Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 5 GRADING The grading and utility plan proposes to grade a private street from Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) to service the proposed four lots. As a result of the grading most of the significant spruce trees along the southerly property line will be lost. The existing driveway access point is proposed to be relocated to tie into the proposed private street from Powers Boulevard. The Carver County Highway Department will need to issue an access permit for the proposed private street. Between 6 to 8 feet of fill is needed to build up the house pads for Lots 3 and 4. Staff is wondering if there is additional material on site to be utilized for the development of these house pads or will material be imported to the site? If material is to be imported or exported, approved haul routes will need to be submitted to the City for review and approval. EROSION CONTROL All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Erosion control fence is proposed adjacent to the wetlands within the buffer zone. Staff recommends erosion control be placed at the construction limits and not encroaching upon the buffer zone. UTILITIES Sanitary sewer service is available to the site from the west; however, sanitary sewer is not deep enough to service Lot 4 without an ejector pump in the lower level. According to the plans, the applicant is proposing the use of a 3-inch forcemain which is not desirable nor necessary in this situation. There are alternative measures to be employed such as an ejector pump from the lower level. Staff recommends that Lot 4 be required to make use of an ejector system for the lower level so that the main level and above will be on a gravity sewer system. This is much less of a maintenance item for the homeowner and, from a reliability standpoint, a superior alternative. Water service is available from Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to extend a 6- inch water service line down for water service to the new lots as well as fire protection. As denoted in the alternative development proposals, this site can also be served by public utilities and streets from the north through a public improvement project. If this application is approved, staff recommends that the sewer and water construction be in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities should be turned over to the City for ownership and maintenance. The applicant will need to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements. Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 6 STREETS Back in September of 1991 in conjunction with Lundgren's WillowRidge subdivision which lies directly to the west of this site, access and utility service to this site were explored. Utilities were extended to the west line of this site in conjunction with WillowRidge's development proposal. Access into the Ravis parcel from WillowRidge was another matter, however. The Ravis parcel does have frontage along Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) which allowed other alternatives to provide access to the Ravis property rather than WillowRidge. Staff concluded at that time a cul-de-sac from WillowRidge was not feasible. A cul-de-sac from Lundgren's WillowRidge would have involved losing a lot of trees and by the time the cul-de-sac was extended through to the Ravis property, there was very little property left to be developed. Staff has recently explored some other alternative development possibilities on the Ravis property and adjoining parcels. Attached is a memo that was sent to the residents lying south of Lake Lucy Road and west of Powers Boulevard (Attachment 1). This memo explores five alternatives to subdividing the neighborhood. Staff met with the residents regarding the alternative development proposals back on March 9, 1995. At that meeting there was numerous discussions pertaining to private driveway access points along Powers Boulevard as well as all of the options listed within the memo. The general consensus was that no one alternative could be completely agreed upon by all affected parcels. Staff did propose Option E as a viable option in developing the neighborhood, including the Ravis parcel. This alternative also provided the most flexibility for the other adjacent parcels to subdivide as well. The private driveway proposal, as submitted, limits access to only the Ravis parcel and no future access to the adjoining parcels. Staff feels that this area can and should be developed under a different alternative which includes a public street. Therefore, at this time staff recommends that the subdivision as proposed be denied due to premature street access to development. If a private driveway was allowed to be constructed, the remaining parcels (Kohman and Infanger) will have limited subdivision potential, if any. PRIVATE STREETS - FINDINGS The applicant is proposing the use of a private street to provide access to four proposed lots in this development. City Code, Section 18-57 (o) permits up to four (4) lots to be served by a private street if the city finds the following to exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions, and the existence of wetlands. FINDING: The prevailing development does not make it infeasible for the construction of a public street. Should the applicant be permitted to construct the Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 7 — private street as proposed, two parcels will be limited in subdividing and/or possibly prohibited from further subdividing. Staff believes that option E of the alternative development proposals is the best of the 5 alternatives for serving the neighboring properties. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. FINDING: The extension of a public street as described in option E is required to service the surrounding parcels. — (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees. FINDING: The proposed private street will result in the removal of a large number of trees located south of Lot 1. By using a public street, all those trees will be preserved. If the public street was relocated to the north of the site where staff has proposed, tree loss would be minimal. Most of the trees can be transplanted due to _ their size. Staff is recommending that the private streets as proposed by the applicant be denied for _ reasons outlined above. PARK DEDICATION Full park and trail fees will be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 100' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 — Lot 1 31,437 125' 252' 30'/30' 10' Lot 2 18,750 125' 150' 30'/30' 20' Golden Glow Acres — April 19, 1995 Page 8 — Lot 3 20,456 140' 150 30'/50' 20' — Lot 4 22,575 169' 150' 30'/50' 20' TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING _ The applicant has submitted a tree inventory and canopy coverage calculation. Also noted on the plan are required replacement plantings to be done. All trees, excluding those in the front yard of the existing home, are along the property lines of the site. Since the new road will be _ following the southern and lower eastern lines, a number of trees are scheduled to be removed. The diameters range from four to 16 inches, not including a 48 inch willow that appears to be on the neighbor's property. Five trees ( 35, 36, 37, 38, and 45) have been included on the survey, but do not appear to be on the property being developed. Trees 35 through 38 have questionable survival chances. There will be a three to four foot cut for the roadway and the four trees are 2 to 10 feet from the edge of the cut. Since they appear to be on the neighbor's property, their removal cannot be readily assumed. The applicant's canopy coverage calculations are in order and they will be required to plant 13 replacement trees as shown on the tree inventory. During construction, trees 51 through 58 — must be protected at all times by tree protection fencing. The same preservation principles shall be applied to trees near the existing house and along the proposed roadway. — Whether or not trees 35 through 38 and 45 will be included in the development plans must be resolved by the applicant considering they are not on the development property. Their removal or preservation may also make a slight difference in canopy coverage calculations. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 9 — Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable plans with the exception of the private street ordinance as discussed in the private street — findings section. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, — vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure with the exception of public streets. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate _ open areas to accommodate house pads. Tree removal can be minimized if the applicant implemented option E of street layout proposal prepared by the city. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, — but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the — following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. — Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure with the exception of adequate streets. Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 10 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-22 for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans dated November 18, 1994 for reasons outlined in the staff report. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the preliminary plat, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94- 22 for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans dated November 18, 1995, with the following conditions: 1. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. 2. Building Department conditions: a. Revise Grading and Utility Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Revise the Grading and Utility Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. c. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Submit street names to Public Safety for approval. b. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. c. Fire hydrant location is accepted. Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 11 _ 4 Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. — 5. The applicant shall provide the city with a $500 escrow prior to the city signing the final plat for review and recording of the final plat documents and guarantee boulevard restoration. 6. Importing or exporting material from the site will require approval of a haul route. The — haul route shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 7. Lot 4 shall utilize an internal ejector pump system to service the lower level of the — dwellings, if necessary. The use of a forcemain shall be prohibited. 8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Erosion control fence shall be installed at the edge of the construction limits and not within the wetland buffer zone. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the final plat conditions of approval. 10. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 11. The applicant shall be responsible for extending municipal utilities to the north line of — Lot 2 for future extension. Lots 2, 3 and 4 will be charged at time of building permit a hookup charge in the amount of $2,425 each lot. 12. The applicant shall receive the necessary access permit from the Carver County Highway Department for relocating the driveway access prior to the City signing the final plat. — 13. Direct access to all lots shall be limited to the proposed private street. A cross-access easement agreement shall be prepared by the applicant to maintain access to Lots 1, 2, — 3 and 4 via the proposed private street. 14. The applicant shall design and construct a storm drainage system to convey runoff from — the development and pretreat the storm runoff to SWMP standards to discharge into the wetlands in lieu of paying SWMP water quality fees. The applicant shall pay the City Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 12 a SWMP water quantity fee in the amount of $2,811.60. This fee is payable prior to the City signing the final plat. 15. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The applicant shall submit a letter to the City documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. 16. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for the stormwater quality pond in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The grading plan shall be revised to include a storm drainage system which will convey runoff from the private street to the pretreatment pond. 17. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the utility improvements shall be required for review and formal approval by the City Council. Construction plans and specifications shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications & Detail Plates. ATTACHMENTS 1. Alternative development proposals. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle dated April 10, 1995. 3. Application. 4. Letter from the applicant dated November 24, 1994. 5. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated December 13, 1994. 6. Memo from Mark Littfin dated November 23, 1994. 7. Memo from Jill Kimsal, dated April 11, 1995. 8. Minnegasco dated December 1, 1994 9. Memo from DNR dated November 30, 1994. 10. Memo from Carver County Engineer dated December 30, 1995. 11. Public hearing and property owners list. 12. Preliminary plat dated November 18, 1994. CITY OFF _ ... .7,1_ $ CHANHASSEN _ ,_, ...,„,. ...,:, ....,;:.-7 ''''';'''Z .: .!....0A ail 41 1 � 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — . (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 February 24, 1995 — Re: Alternative Development Proposals for Ravis Property and Adjoining Parcels — LUR File No. 95-4 Dear Resident: — This letter is a follow up to our previous neighborhood meeting regarding the Ravis development _ (Golden Glow Acres). As promised, please find attached a copy of five alternatives to subdividing the Ravis property and adjoining parcels. In addition, I have attached a preliminary assessment roll from the costs of construction these improvements assuming the City was — petitioned by the benefitting property owners. The City has reviewed the Ravis development proposal and feels that a public street (Option E) is a feasible alternative to the proposed private driveway scenario and therefore the City is not in support of the private driveway access to serve — solely the Ravis parcel. Please review the attachments I have enclosed. I would like to schedule a neighborhood meeting _ to discuss these alternatives on March 9, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City's Senior Center located on the lower level at City Hall. If you have any questions and are unable to attend the meeting, please feel free to contact me. — Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN — "L C.- A4:,r:- 10-I David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer — DCH:jms - Attachments c: Charles D. Folch, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II g:kngWav e\Ietterslravis MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: January 30, 1995 SUBJ: Alternative Development Proposals for Ravis Property File No. 95-4 LUR Attached are five alternatives to subdividing this neighborhood. I have listed below the pros and cons of each option. All options maintain existing homesites and Mr. Kerber's "Twins" garage is removed in all _ options. Dashed lines represent existing property lines. Solid lines represent proposed lot lines. Utilities would be able to be extended to each option; however, Option E would require less utility and street construction. OPTION A This option develops the northerly portion of the site with a public street (assumes Ravis subdivision proposal over the south half). Pros, Cons - City street - Requires properties to be - Utilitizes properties to their full consolidated and replatted potential - Tree loss - Adequate intersection spacing on - Significant grading/filling Lake Lucy Road - Rear yards against Powers - Access limited to Lake Lucy Road Boulevard - Allows for Berming along Powers - House type mostly ramblers versus Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road walkouts - Still requires private driveways to serve parcels to the south OPTION B This option is similar to Option A but extended to service all parcels. — Pros Cons Basically the same as Option A except Same as Option A but this option does not serves all the parcels. need private driveways. - City street - Becomes a long (1075') cul-de-sac - Utilitizes properties to their full with one access point potential - - Adequate intersection spacing on Lake Lucy Road - Provides room for berming along Powers Boulevard - Access limited to Lake Lucy Road OPTION C Pros, Cons Same as Options A and B except allows Same as Options A and B except the long two access points and the long cul-de-sac cul-de-sac issue is resolved. is reduced in half. OPTION D Basically the same as Option B except access is from Powers Boulevard and Lot 6 would have access on to Lake Lucy Road. — Pros Cons - City street - Requires properties to be - Utilizes properties to their full consolidated and replatted potential - Tree loss — - Adequate intersection spacing on - Significant grading/filling Powers Boulevard - Rearyards against Powers Provides room for berming along Boulevard Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy - House type mostly ramblers versus Road. walkouts OPTION E This option combines the use of private driveways and a public street to develop the site. Least disruptive to existing features and also allows for the area to develop, for the most part, — independently of each other. pros Cons - Minimizes site grading/filling and - Still requires two or more parcels to tree loss; retains existing replat in order to develop layout — topographic features for the most part - Provides a mixture of house types, i.e. walkout, rambler, etc. - Allows for parts of the area to develop independently of the rest - Provides public street access - Curb cuts align with or across from _ existing driveways - Adequate intersection spacing - Room for berming along Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road - Maintains use of existing driveways - Most likely the most feasible from and economic standpoint - eliminates long dead-end cul-de-sac — DCH:ktm Attachments: Options A, B, C, D & E — g:kngldavelmemoslravis i. I /6 I 4 I ' /s MURP- I _ 1 \_.). . - IO) . —_ — —_ KERBER • I dV S I /2- C o GRAVLUM I I . 1 7/1) // .3I4044e004k . ( C•.t.c.c.i. I /o 7 I I PETE N 1 - I 1 5 'r S 1 I---` I rpt RAVIS I - - - — — — — cprloN A A( riff_ . 111 ref • 1� Z 1 L3 1 . MU I • _ 1 y ' Z/ KERBER GRAVLUM `� 7 ' 1 /9 RSON / 7 i /HMAN FANGER i / }� 9L1774s'5 . Pi ceee zz/e.„ A 0. 1 ___7 / 3 y1, 1 2 1 MU- ' 1 I ZI 0 \-' I . _ ii y I 70 i I KERBa GRAVLUM i ___1\ 7 _! 1 - c'sGN /7 : ? LHii - . 1S ; I /5 /0 ,_ __ _ 1 i . - •HMAN ifI y I- - __ 1 1 (--V-H INFANGER 1 I /3"u." - 1 I 4e)774+/ e Harstad Companies April 5, 1995 Page 11 among other issues, were discussed at these meetings. Specific to the park acquisition, the following information was forwarded to Harstad Companies. Generally, the transaction would entail the following elements: _ 1. The city would accept the dedication of parkland from Harstad Companies. This dedication would equal their required dedication per city ordinance. The land area _ requested would commence at the property's eastern border (Lake Minnewashta) and extend to the west. This dedication would entail approximately 1.75 acres. 2. The remainder of the park would be purchased from Harstad Companies. 3. In assuming ownership of the park, the city would accept the responsibility for its — portion of public improvements. These improvements generally include street and curb construction and utility costs (sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer). More specifically, the city would pay for its half of the street and associated curb, a water and sewer unit (to accommodate any future hookup) and stormwater costs. Unfortunately, Harstad Companies has informed the city that they misunderstood the city's — position. Believing that the city would pay the full cost of public improvements for both sides of the street along the park's frontage. As I informed Harstad Companies, such an arrangement has, to my recollection, never been consummated by the city. It would not be in the best interests of the public to do so. Harstad Companies' options are to ask the City Council to authorize construction of the road and assess the abutting properties, or in the interest of their proposed development, assume the costs of that portion of Kings Road. — Harstad Companies has informed us that they do not accept the premise on which the city's proposal is based and have chosen to submit a second preliminary plat. This proposed plat again does not incorporate the recommendations of the Park and Recreation Commission. You will note that this submittal, dated January 13, 1995, includes 49 lots, proposes a partial vacation of Kings Road, and includes 2.6 acres of parkland split between two locations, one on the western edge of the plat adjacent to the City of Victoria and the other, labeled as Outlot "A" Park, adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. I have informed Mr. Paul Harstad of my _ disapproval of this plan based on its lack of compliance with the desires communicated by the Park and Recreation Commission. On January 24, 1995, the Commission recommended the following: — Park The plat shall include a 10± acre park at the northwest intersection of where Kings Road currently is located and Minnewashta Parkway. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park dedication (1.72+ acres) and purchase (7.48+ acres). This — acquisition shall be a condition of final plat approval. A purchase agreement shall be Harstad Companies _ April 5, 1995 Page 10 parcels (Headla/Wenzel) which could be further subdivided. Access to the Headla/Wenzel parcels has been considered at this time. The Headla parcel abuts Stratford Lane which is only constructed for approximately 250 feet west of Minnewashta Parkway. When Stratford Ridge was platted an Outlot B was created for future extension and deeded to the Stratford Ridge Homeowners Association versus the City. Ms. Hallgren gains access to her property through/over this Outlot. Access to the Headla/Wenzel parcels is provided with the extension of White Oak Lane. A temporary cul-de-sac is proposed at the east end of White Oak Lane. Barricades shall be placed at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac and a sign indicating that "THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Staff will also place this condition within the development contract which is recorded against all of the parcels in the development. _ With the exception of Kings Road, street grades appear to be within the City's ordinance. On Kings Road the street was designed to be compatible with the existing topography which resulted in street grades between 0.49% to 10.00%. Staff recommends a variance to the City — ordinance be approved. Lot 32, Block 3 will have street access and utility service from Country Oak Lane. The — home should be required to access Country Oak Lane as well. PARK AND RECREATION Exactly one year ago the commission reviewed a preliminary plat of Harstad Companies for this same site. The staff report reviewing that application dated January 25, 1994 is attached. On the evening of Tuesday, January 25, 1994, the commission took public comment on this proposal, heard from the applicant and made the following recommendation to the city council: Roeser moved, Manders seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat as presented with the inclusion of acquisition of the 10± acre park depicted in Park Plan A including the lakeshore property. The acquisition of the park is to be accomplished through park dedication of 1.72+ acres and purchase of 7.48+ acres. This acquisition shall be a condition of final plat approval. A purchase agreement shall be negotiated by the city attorney contingent upon City Council approval, full park fee credit ($38,700) on 43 homes is to be granted as a part of these negotiations. Acceptance of full trail dedication fees in force upon building permit application is recommended. Current trail fees are $300 per single family residential unit. All voted in favor and the _ motion carried unanimously. In the interest of fulfilling this recommendation, a series of meetings between the City of — Chanhassen and Harstad Companies were held throughout 1994. The acquisition of the park, Harstad Companies — April 5, 1995 Page 9 financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. As with other typical city developments, the moisture content in the soil is relatively high and the City has employed the use of draintile behind the curbs for improving both road sub-base drainage as well as providing a discharge point for household sump pumps. The applicant — should be aware that the City will be requiring with the street and utility construction to include a draintile system for those lots which do not abut a wetland or storm pond. In addition, subdivision in the past have required up to a 2-foot granular subcut for the street — section. The applicant should be advised that soil conditions may require some sort of modification to the typical street sections. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The City will also require that all ponding areas be designed to provide — access for maintenance equipment. The design shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. — EROSION CONTROL — The grading plan does provide minimal erosion control measures (Type I); however, adjacent to all wetland areas the erosion control fence should be Type III. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice — Handbook. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) may be required by the City behind the curbs during new home construction. — STREETS Access to the development is proposed via Kings Road which is a narrow gravel roadway — between 20 to 23 feet wide. Kings Road is proposed to be upgraded to urban street standards to adequately address traffic and ordinance requirements. The City's urban standards consist of a 31-foot wide back-to-back bituminous street section with concrete curb and gutter. — According to the ordinance right-of-way shall be 60 feet wide which the plans propose. On Kings Road the applicant is proposing to dedicate 50 feet of the normally required right-of- way. The City has compromised on the right-of-way width as a part of negotiations. The — applicant will be constructing Kings Road only up to Country Oaks Road. Outlot B will not be able to subdivide until Kings Road is upgraded to a full urban city street. The Outlot (B) may be subject to assessments for the cost of upgrading Kings Road in the future. A 5-foot — wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along the west side of Country Oaks Lane. The site will eventually be connected to the existing Country Oaks Road to the north once the — Hallgren parcel develops. On the east side of this development there exists a combination of Harstad Companies April 5, 1995 Page 8 There appears to be at least one existing structure (house) on the parcel located in the vicinity of the parkland. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with the necessary agency permits. A majority of the site is capable of being serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and water by extending utilities from Minnewashta Parkway along Kings Road. A lift station is proposed to service the westerly portion of the development. The applicant should size the lift station to accommodate future development south of Kings Road (approximately 10 acres). The lift station will also need to be fitted with a telemetry system as consistent with the other City lift stations and well houses. The City has agreed to share the cost of this telemetry system on a 50/50 basis with the applicant. The applicant has also requested that the City compensate them for the oversizing of the lift station. The City does not have a funding mechanism to assist the applicant in the cost of constructing the lift station without doing a public improvement project (§429 assessable project) which has been discussed previously with the applicant. If the applicant wishes to further pursue City cost participation of the lift station, they should formally petition the City. The City is currently scheduling developments and capital improvement projects for 1996 and 1997. All petitions received by the City at this point will most likely be considered for a late 1996 or 1997 public improvement project. The westerly one-third of this development is dependant on the lift station to provide sanitary sewer service as proposed. Without the lift station, the westerly one-third of the development should be considered premature. The lift station design will be further reviewed during the construction plan and specification review process. The plans are providing utility stubouts for the future extension to the adjacent parcels to the north and east. The plans also propose to install individual utility services to the existing homes south of Kings Road. Contingent upon parkland acquisition, the City is proposing to contribute towards a portion of the utility and street costs along Kings Road. According to City ordinance, the parcel south of Kings Road must hook up to the new utilities within 12 months after the utilities are operational if it is within 150 feet of the utilities. Upon review of the utility plan layout, it appears fire hydrants have been revised in accordance with the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. Staff has reviewed the alignment of the utility lines and recommends relocating the forcemain and sanitary sewer line proposed between Lots 25 and 26, Block 3 to the westerly edge of Lot 25, Block 3 and Outlot B and between Lots 24 and 25, Block 3 to avoid future conflicts with the homes. In addition, this will result in the sanitary sewer line being much shallower. These types of revisions will be further addressed during the construction plan and specification review process. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street and utility improvements will be required for review by staff and City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval. The street and utility improvement shall be designated and constructed in accordance with the City latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary Harstad Companies — April 5, 1995 Page 7 varies from 20 feet to 23 feet, thus limiting the public right-of-way use to this area. The existing roadway is a substandard rural street meandering back and forth within the proposed right-of-way. At the west end of Kings Road the roadway is entirely outside the 33-foot — "right-of-way". The City has received a request from the applicant to perform a 429 public improvement project to construct Kings Road. The City considered the request and required that an escrow be supplied to the City to perform a feasibility study. However, the applicant — did not provide the City with the escrow and thus, the petition was not acted upon. Staff has met again with the applicant to discuss the issues involved in performing a 429 project to upgrade Kings Road. A 429 public improvement project requires a feasibility study, public — hearing and authorization by the City Council. The applicant, through negotiation with the City, is proposing to dedicate a 50-foot wide right-of-way which includes the existing Kings Road gravel surface to construct the new street. Staff has compromised on the City's — standard 60-foot wide right-of-way as a part of negotiations. The preliminary grading plan proposes to grade the entire site. For the most part, the site is — devoid of trees except in the northwest corner of the site. This area is proposed to be served by a private street and the lots (4-8, Block 3) custom graded at time of building permit. Due to the size of the parcel, it is anticipated that the applicant will proceed with several phases in — order to complete the overall development. In conjunction with upgrading Kings Road the grading appears to be contained within the proposed right-of-way and not encroaching upon the properties south of Kings Road with the exception of Outlot A for a storm sewer and — sediment trap. The proposed street grades along Kings Road exceeds the City's ordinance (0.50% to 7.0%). A variance would be required for the street grades. — Staff is concerned with a proposed drainage swale on Lot 24, Block 3. Due to the contributing drainage, staff believes this area will be saturated most of the time. Staff — recommends the grading be adjusted if possible to sheet drain across the rear yard into the wetlands. Staff will be reviewing this after the final drainage calculations are submitted. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post-developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-development and post-development — conditions for 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre-developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm — water ponds for both pre-developed and post-developed conditions. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 212-inch rainfall, however, the rate of phosphorus retention will vary on the function and value of the wetlands downstream. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. UTILITIES Harstad Companies April 5, 1995 Page 6 the Lake St. Joe basin and drain into Lake St. Joe from the west. The storm drainage plan should also be analyzed by the applicant's engineer in order to meet the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The drainage areas have changed enough since the original set of plans that staff requires a new set of hydrologic calculations for the site. The pond in the park should be designed to pretreat approximately 16.5 acres of runoff according to the SWMP. If there is additional acreage to this pond due to a change in the watershed boundaries, the pond size should account for the additional runoff. Ponding must meet Walker's Pondnet standards of approximately 65% total phosphorus removal before it is discharged off-site. The SWMP calls for a 12" pipe to be directed south under Kings road and continue on to Lake St. Joe where the treated stormwater can be discharged. If the adjacent property owners on the south side of Kings Road (Morgan/Scott) are willing to grant the City a drainage and utility easement, the City will credit the applicant to install the storm sewer from Kings Road down to Lake St. Joe. If the City is not granted a drainage and utility easement, then the pond will have to be enlarged to a water quantity pond and will be required to maintain pre-developed runoff rates off-site for a 100-year 24-hour storm. This means the runoff will continue to drain underneath Kings Road through the Morgan/Scott parcel to Lake St. Joe as it exists with predevelopment conditions. The runoff to the southwest portion of the site should be evaluated for pre-developed and post developed conditions. Additional runoff to this area especially from impervious surfaces may — require a sediment pond prior to discharging into the wetland located just east of this site in Victoria. Also, City ordinance requires that stormwater runoff from the site must be controlled at pre-developed runoff rates. There will be some stormwater discharge from the southeast corner of the site and Kings Road that will be conveyed via storm sewer through Outlot A south of Kings Road which is — proposed to be dedicated to the City. A sediment pond is necessary to pretreat the runoff from the road before it discharges into Lake St. Joe. The sediment trap should be designed to remove 35% phosphorus according to Walker's Pondnet model. GRADING The City half-section maps indicate and existing 33-foot wide right-of-way for Kings Road. However, after further research by the city attorney's office, it appears the City has not been conveyed the necessary right-of-way as shown on the half-section maps. The city attorney's office has advised staff that in cases such as this, where the existing gravel road has been maintained (i.e. snow plowing, grading, etc.) by the City for over six years, the City attains prescriptive rights to the public right-of-way for Kings Road which is generally defined to be limited to the travelled portion of the roadway along with the shoulder, drainage ditch, inslope and any land deemed to be a necessary appurtenance for the roadway. In this situation, Kings Road has been maintained by the City for over the six-year period. The width of Kings Road Harstad Companies — April 5, 1995 Page 5 water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water — bodies. Storm Water Quality Fees — The SWMP has established a connection charge for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the — phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen — plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the applicant constructs the pond or $4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the City constructs the pond. Fees are reduced based on the costs of the developers contribution to the SWMP design — parameters. The proposed SWMP quality charge has been calculated at $800/acre for single family residential developments. This proposed development of 27.55 acres would then be responsible for a water quality connection charge of $22,040. Since the applicant is — proposing to construct water quality basins in accordance with the City's SWMP, these fees will then be waived. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established an connection charge for different land uses based on an average, city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for — temporary runoff storage. The connection charge is based on the type of land use for the area. Fees will be based on the total developable land. Undevelopable area (wetlands), public parks, and existing development is exempt from the fees. The fees are negotiable — based on the developers contribution to the SWMP design parameters. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This proposed single family residential development of 27.55 acres would then be responsible for a — water quantity connection charge of $54,549. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, pond oversizing, — etc. Credits towards this fee will be reviewed after the final construction plans have been approved by the City. DRAINAGE AREAS The site is divided into two drainage subdistricts with the westerly one quarter of the site — draining west into wetlands located within the City of Victoria. These wetlands are part of Harstad Companies April 5, 1995 Page 4 area. The applicant's engineer has redesigned the sanitary sewer to serve this area and — employed the use of a private driveway. This enables the grades to be left alone in the northwest corner of the site, thus, saving the trees. Staff finds the previous recommendations for woodland management still apply. Staff has applied the new woodland management plan to the subdivision Section 18.61(d)(2). The total area development (not including park land) of the plat is 24.83 acres. The total canopy cover is approximately 4.5 acres. The applicant base line canopy is 20%. The applicant is required to maintain 25%. An addition of 5% of canopy is required to be — replaced. This equates to 52 additional trees. Because the subdivision proposes to take out trees that would have met the canopy coverage, the developer is required to prepare a woodland management plan. The replacement plan must designate an area at least 11/2 times the removed canopy coverage area that shall be planted with replacement trees for those removed. This results in 60 additional trees to be planted. — Staff is recommending that the applicant prepare a woodland management plan. At a minimum of the 112 trees required for replacement, 2 trees per lot should be required. The remaining trees could be placed in a streetscape plan or in a newly created wooded area. Streetscape, as per the city's landscaping ordinance, shall be required along Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road (Sec. 18-61[5]). The majority of the streetscape will be accomplished with the development of the park. — WETLANDS It appears that there may be a small wetland north of Kings Road on Lot 9, Block 1 and in the southwest corner of the site (Outlot B and Lot 25, Block 3). A wetland alteration permit or confirmation of exemption from the wetland permit process is necessary. If there are wetlands on site, they should be staked, surveyed, and included on the grading and drainage plan with the buffer strip width as required by City Ordinance. In any case, a report or letter of clarification is required from a qualified wetland delineator. Surface Water Management Plan The City has prepared and adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) to serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow Harstad Companies — April 5, 1995 Page 3 is proposing the extension of the easterly leg of White Oak Lane as a cul-de-sac to serve this area. The site has a varied topography, changing in elevation over 40 feet. The high point of the site runs north and south through the center of the parcel. The site is primarily grass with a few scattered trees. There is a mature stand of trees located on the northwest corner of the _ site. The plat includes 7 lots that have access via Kings Road. This portion of the road will not be — developed because they will not have frontage on a public street. Until there is a public street built to city standards, these 7 lots shall remain as an outlot. A portion of the park ('/ acre) is located east of Minnewashta Parkway. This lake frontage area is not large enough to qualify for a recreational beachlot. The minimum standards for a beachlot are 200 feet of lake frontage with 30,000 square feet of lot area. The Park and — Recreation Commission is recommending that this area be used for open space with swimming or picnicking only. Lake St. Joe is just to the south of Kings Road. The lake has been designated as a Natural Environmental Lake by the DNR. Compliance with the Shoreland Regulations would mandate that all lots within 1,000 feet of the shoreland must have an minimum of 15,000 — square feet with a 90 foot lot width (Sec. 20-480-[1]). The RSF standards, which is the underlying zoning, requires all lots to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet with a front yard lot width of 90 feet for the front yard. The Shoreland 1000 foot jurisdiction line has been — delineated for this subdivision. There are 30 lots that will ultimately fall within the Shoreland Regulations. All lots meet the Shoreland Regulations. — Bill Thibault, the Planning Consultant with the City of Victoria, has reviewed the previous subdivision and made the following comments: Kings Road should be extended, and if it is not, the provision for a road running north and south along the westerly property line should be considered. Staff has reviewed this request and believes it is not feasible due to the wetland that exists west of this development. At this time, Kings Road is proposed to be — extended to intersect with Country Oaks Road to act as the local collector street for this subdivision. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION There is a significant stand of trees located in the northwest corner of the plat,just south of the Hallgren property. Staff had recommended that a tree survey (Sec. 18-40, [2f1) be submitted with the plat. A tree survey was done with the first submittal of the plat. The survey identifies the majority of the trees are maple and oaks with the largest being 36 inch — caliper for each species. There are some ash, box elder, and basswood scattered through the Harstad Companies _ April 5, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY Harstad Companies is requesting approval to plat 35.38 acres of property into 45 lots an 8 acre park and two outlots. The property is located north of Kings Road and south of the Stratford Ridge Subdivision and the Hallgren property. There are three underlying parcels in the proposed subdivision: Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla. This property is currently zoned _ Residential Single Family (RSF). The City of Victoria borders the western limits of the subdivision and Lake Minnewashta borders the eastern property limits. There have been 3 previous attempts to plat this property. Harstad Development proposed a subdivision for 57 lots in February, 1994. This subdivision request was denied by the Planning Commission. The applicant had requested that the City Council table action on this subdivision request and allow them the opportunity to resolve the design issues with this plat. Another plat dated May 1, 1994 was given preliminary plat approval by the City Council in July, 1994. The applicant never final platted this subdivision because of financial issues they had with the park location. This plat included 45 lots with the potential of 4 more lots in Phase II. Since this time the applicant had proposed relocating Kings Road and moving a 2.7 acre park to the western portion of the subdivision. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of this plat. The staff has been working with the applicant to resolve the compensation issues they had. Out of these discussions it appears that there is a mutually acceptable subdivision that meets the standards of the city including the location of a park adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road. BACKGROUND - Proposed Plat This property is currently zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The City of Victoria borders the western limits of the subdivision and Lake Minnewashta borders the eastern property limits. The 8 acre park is located at the corner of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. A portion of the Ziegler property is located south of Kings Road. This parcel is 199 feet wide and approximately 500 feet deep, and a large portion of this property is _ undeveloped because of wetlands. The developer's engineer has delineated the wetland edge. Staff finds that this property is unbuildable based on the lot size and wetland setback requirements. All adjacent zoning to this site is RSF except for the land in Victoria which is zoned rural density, or 1 unit per ten acres. There are no wetlands on the site except for the wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe which affects one lot which staff is indicating as unbuildable. There are three large parcels adjacent to this development, the Headla, Hallgren and Wenzel properties. Future access to these parcels needs to be considered as a part of this plat. Staff r,Rvnw.' f. i - ,I o At tie IpmrAk4V i op rad 6400 A liiiiiiiiiiii r AST ERE, .. / r •04:L�A 6500 v!: vit. /% r,4, ait.. 4,„, 41 11,,ijoilit_ 4 ( 6600 �� �; ����1i �r. ' �• ,L .3 c3,c , .4-11 , D:4):4!z/ - .�+, ADA MI* NW �1tWall � -......g...--* �4 6700 I 4111111 111111 ��. �. goi ,I hi a �� LAKE 6800 ■ ,� . , .-) a COUNTRY STR I• 9 R•u OAKS /ROAD TRATF• •%u/ L%s M / N N E W A S /.. 6900 I/, �ATUO,•LLANE .;i /Ar �� ! ---�— Tubi„ - r - F. //1��t , PUD—R 7000 fX • ICI 'G -i • R - i • PA joill!4,',„ RD 7100 — • • CALEE ,� A giir:'ll„i", ��I _ I - Pow• � 111- 0, �� ,`--APII1111111 I11 6 10 1 „, ,,, - �r x-- 7200-- I EabEst.. Li ��`\ KNOLLW000 611,P0 TRAIL .,. �C�ir qv, 7300 • �.�pip 11116.#* u , MINNEWASH COURT i TA i f i , a . 1 111111 j ■t arrel'i tt ! I • j '400 a� ti �' T .'�:i, %�I ' it �] el , ;, 7500 Mg all EPAVEr\t.....‘ .r -,„, 7600 � � �� • U v l 7700 1111.11111114-:� 7800 os'-`s1 6 .0-\' 4%OR TQM 7900 C I TY O F PC DATE: April 19, 1995 49_ \— \\l • . U A I' 'U A E CC DATE: May11, 1995 CASE #: 93-11 SUB STAFF REPORT — PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 35.83 Acres into 45 Single Family Lots, Two Outlots and a Neighborhood Park — 12 LOCATION: North of Kings Road, west of Minnewashta Parkway to the Victoria City Z a Limits — V APPLICANT: Harstad Companies Loucks and Associates 2191 Silver Road 72000 Hemlock Lane — CL. New Brighton, MN 55112 Maple Grove, MN 555369 Q PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 35.83 acres (gross) 17.74 acres (net) DENSITY: 1.2 units/acre gross 2.48 units/acre net ADJACENT ZONING — AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Single Family S - RSF, Single Family Q E - RSF, Single Family - 5 W - Victoria WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site — W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has a varied topography with the high point running north and south through the center of the plat. There is a - (I) significant stand of trees in the northwest corner of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Terry & Barbara Bolen Robert Jensen & Mary Zehrer Doris S. Larson — 8451 Pelican Ct. 8299 Essex Rd. 8324 Essex Rd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 P. 0. Box 66 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Prairie Creek Townhome Assoc. Douglas & Donna Johnson Betty Giboney 235 First St. W. 8305 Essex Rd. 8329 Essex Rd. — Waconia, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Peter & Judith Kurth Wade & Yvonne Schneider Kirk Sampson & Any Flicek 1040 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1230 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1250 Lake Susan Hills Dr. — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Joseph & Jane Miller Mark & Julie Goeman Gary & Sharon Condit 8421 Egret Ct. 8441 Egret Ct. 8440 Pelican Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mary Leirdahl Jasper Development Robert & K. Nelson — 8291 Essex Rd. 235 First St. W. 8330 Essex Rd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Waconia, MN 55387 chan Lake Susan Hills Floyd & Gretchen Radach _ Suite 200 8313 Essex Rd. 7600 Parklawn Ave. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edina, MN 55435 D. R. Horton, Inc. Minnesota William & Margaret Tretter Byron & Gayle Korus Suite 204 881 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 8360 West Lake Drive 3459 Washington Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Eagan, MN 55122 Jeffrey & Karen Flanders David & Marian Quinzon Paul & Darlene Ryan — 8361 West Lake Dr. 1071 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 8310 West Lake Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Andrew & Cheryl Olson Gary & Laurie Kassen James & Lori Domholt _ 8290 West Lake Ct. 8270 West Lake Ct. 8251 West Lake Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Neal & Suzanne Ray Ronald & Ann Kloempken Steven & Darnell Sollom 8281 West Lake Ct. 8311 West Lake Ct. 1070 Lake Susan Hills Dr. — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Scott & Deborach Swanson Argus Development, Inc. Dale & Linda Hallard 829 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 18133 Cedar Ave. So. 8440 West Lake Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Farmington, MN 55024 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Florent & Catheri8ne Soissons Richard & Karen Thon Michael & Maureen Harlander 8350 West Lake Dr. 8351 West Lake Dr. 8320 West Lake Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ Ronald & Cynthia Tonn Thomas & Lynda Dotzenrod Craig & Laurie Burfeind — 8300 West Lake Ct. 8280 West Lake Ct. 8261 West Lake Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & Peggy Hartman Kevin & Karen Engebretson Thomas & Laurie Nilsson 8301 West Lake Ct. 1060 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1060 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Russell & Nancy Birch Richard & Peggy Anderson Hamid Hoodeh 1050 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1030 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1240 Lake Susan Hills Dr. — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Patrick & Wendy Nelson Bernardino, Jr. & Lonna Lanzi Thomas & Nancy Martinson 8411 Egret Ct. 8431 Egret Ct. 8450 Pelican Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Patrick & Beth Victorian Karl & Susan Meier Donald, Jr. & Annabelle Diamond — 8530 Merganser Ct. 1130 Dove Ct. 1131 Dove Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Douglas & Jacquelyn Jacobson Christopher & Tammara Morton William & Jean Notermann _ 1121 Dove Ct. 8370 West Lake Dr. 8390 West Lake Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kirby & Sandra Paulson Kevin & Teri Burns Daniel & Barbara Hoff 8410 West Lake Dr. 1100 Dove Ct. 1120 Dove Ct. — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Gergory & Diane Meyer Christopher & Marcia Miller Jerry & Paula Lindholm 8381 West Lake Dr. 8401 West Lake Dr. 8421 West Lake Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — David & Debra Rugg John & Margaret Wiehoff Thomas & Karen Stauber 995 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 971 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 8441 West Lake Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kelly & Tracy Woods Michael & Janet Stanzak Donald & Mary Ketcham — 850 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1111 Dove Ct. 8380 West Lake Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jeffrey & Anne Graupmann William & Kelly Schulte Randall & Marilyn Koepsell 8400 West Lake Drive 8420 West Lake Dr. 1110 Dove Ct. — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - Randal & Linda Fingarson Gary & Mary Nussbaum David & Janet Flaskerud 8371 West Lake Drive 8391 West Lake Drive 8411 West Lake Drive _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Gary & Barbara Berg Larry & Denise Witthus Scott & Lisa Nebel 8431 West Lake Drive 981 Lake Susan Hills Drive 961 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kevin & Linda Linehan Thomas & Linda Houston Richard & Catherine Anderson — 860 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 840 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 851 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 W EsTERN 11101 l p ,N4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING i - 4;40' su PK AR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ESSE�T t1�� �' - Wednesday, APRIL 19, 1995 / •� �������� �•\ \ UFFOLK \�I\•Y'� at 7:00 p.m. .04�� ��A�U/t�►� ,`�J������;�� City Hall Council Chambers Q �• o/► �,' ,.,► , �• 690 Coulter Drive �e�``' ''� �k&IIWA !Oa ap ft, cs6aim gni'. L_� . \�� .�+ ► Project: Lake Susan Townhomes ����� ., First Addition 1��v'P-11.'�5� Foo '�� -- .410 Developer: Jasper Development ��� �'��tigi oWIII* 4wA ;11 Nog Location: East of Powers Boulevard, sato. ©tt. j just south of Lake Susan Hills ;ft ►i t,� �� 41 • Drive 4.4410>Airip~I ��� ��` .r r�11ai p ��� c$ ��_ Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Jasper Development Corporation is requsting preliminary plat of 7.29 acres into 35 lot single family townhomes and site plan review for 9 buildings of 3 and 4 plexes located on — property zoned PUD and located east of Powers Boulevard,just south of Lake Susan Hills Drive, Lake Susan Townhomes 1st Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following — steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you — choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 6, 1995. ��� _ CITY OF a9. _ :, ,.,.. A.,„s..... CHANHASSEN C!--. t?r Tom_. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 t (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE 1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18" . NO 2 . Red on white is preferred. PARKING FIRE 3 . 3M or equal engineer ' s grade LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. 7\ 4 . Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE 5 . Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire lane and at least at -I 7 ' 0" 75 foot intervals along the fire lane. 6. All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel. 7 . Post shall be set back a - minimum of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. V - 8 . A fire lane shall be required in (NOT- TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and along all areas designated by the Fire Chief. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN - WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention - Policy #06-1991 Date: 1/15/91 �'! Revised: - Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 ev =Or PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ... CITY OF - :::ift..„ !` orr .‘ , 0 CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal — DATE: April 6, 1995 SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills Drive, Lake Susan Townhomes, 1st Addition Jasper Development. Planning Case 87-3 PUD and 95-7 Site Plan Review — — I have reviewed the site plan in order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division and have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements: — 1. Install "No Parking Fire Lane" sign on all private roads in compliance with Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 (copy enclosed). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 2. Submit street names for review and approval. 3. Fire hydrant changes - contact Fire Marshal for additional fire hydrants and their specific locations. 4. 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. g:kafetpm1\873pud Sharmin Al-Jaff April 6, 1995 Page 2 2. Furnish details on each size of dwelling unit. These details should include exterior dimensions, overhangs, exterior openings and proposed optional additions. Designate which unit will be constructed on which lots. These details must be supplied prior to preliminary plat approval. 3. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. g:'safety.sak'1nemos\pIan\kesus.sj l CITY OFCEANBASSEN - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM — TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official l (t-.1 s DATE: April 6, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-7 SPR and 87-3 PUD (Lake Susan Townhomes 1st Addition, Jasper Development Corporation) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAR 22 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis: Soils Report. A soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes. Dwelling Construction Requirements. In order to adequately review the proposed subdivision details on the proposed dwellings must be supplied. Construction requirements vary depending on the distance to the property line. These requirements regulate type of construction, openings and projections. Drawings showing the dimensions of each different type of dwelling, overhangs, wall openings and proposed optional additions (decks, porches, etc.) must be submitted. Street Names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of _ any building permits. LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the South Half of Section 14, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly right of way line of Lake Susan Hills Drive, as delineated and dedicated on LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Carver County and the easterly right of way line of County State Aid Highway No. 17 per Corrected Highway Easement Book 157 of Deeds, Page 6 on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, said Carver County; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 38 minutes 01 second East, along said southerly right of way line, a distance of 71.41 feet; thence northeasterly, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 256.00 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 220.00 feet and a central angle of 66 degrees 40 minutes 20 seconds; thence North 22 degrees 57 minutes 41 seconds East, along said southerly right of way line and tangent to said curve, a distance of 166.46 feet; thence northeasterly, along said southerly right of way line, a distance of 316.50 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 240.00 feet and a central angle of 75 degrees 33 minutes 34 seconds; thence South 81 degrees 28 minutes 45 seconds East, along said southerly right of way line and tangent to said curve, a distance of 35.00 feet to the west line of Block 5, said LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST; thence South 8 degrees 31 minutes 15 seconds West, along said west line and it's southerly extension, a distance of 659.98 feet; thence South 47 degrees 31 minutes 09 seconds West, a distance of 219.19 feet; thence South 88 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds West, a distance of 366.99 feet to said easterly right of way line; thence North 00 degrees 21 minutes 59 seconds West, along said easterly right of way line, a distance of 386.99 feet to the point of beginning. PROJECT NAME LAKE SUSAN HILLS TOWNHOMES LOCATION SE CORNER LAKE SUSAN HILLS DRIVE & POWERS BLVD. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (ATTACHED) PRESENT ZONING R-8 REQUESTED ZONING NO CHANGE PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION MEDIUM DENSITY RESTDENTIAT, REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION SAME REASON FOR THIS REQUEST INTENDED PLATTING OF TOWNHOUSE PROJECT This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's — Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. :/(1/vt-' tci (,43-LC- SignatUof Applicant / Date jewt/tV d(cpt( 3-zo-IS Signature of Fee Owner Date 4.Application Received on Fee Pa - )')":� Receipt No.5Lf( // The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: JASEIR LEVEL JR`"1FNNT (TTP OF WPIINIIA OWNER: JASPER DEVFIDRENT (ORP OF WPMNIA ADDRESS: 219 E. FRCNTPC,E I D ADDRESS: 219 E. FRCJNDCE RCM WPCCIvrrA, AN 55387 WPOCIQLA, 14N1 55387 TELEPHONE (Day time) 612-442-5611 TELEPHONE: 612-442-5611 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance - 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits - 8. Sign Plan Review X Notification Signs lana.) _ 9. X Site Plan ReviewX Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" A Z<O Y' $100 CUP/SPRNACNARNVAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. X Subdivision Ii4°°+ a SX 3$ �s �1 = TOTAL FEE $ 13 ZS-L.5' A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. - ' NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract Storm water is proposed to be collected at catch basins at each entrance to Lake Susan Hills Drive and then run underground to a sediment pond to be constructed adjacent to the — existing pond. The entire site will require grading to attain the proposed drainage pattern. Erosion control is to be placed prior to grading. Seeding and mulching is to be placed promptly after grading is completed. The interior streets are proposed to be bituminous mat on compacted granular base. Curb shall be surmountable concrete. Street lighting is proposed to be residential type electric postlights in each front yard, — operated by photocell. No wetlands mitigation is anticipated. LAKE SUSAN HILLS TOWNHOMES NARRATIVE The proposed development contains 34 one-story townhouses, each with attached 2-car garages. The townhouses in Blocks 1 through 5 are 1590 s.f one-story units with a full-walkout basement. Each has a small deck at the rear. The townhouses in Blocks 6 through 9 are 1319 s.f one-story units with a full basement. Each has a deck or patio at the rear. Driveways on all units are large enough to accommodate 2 cars. Additionally there are 12 off-street parking stalls planned. The architecture of Lake Susan Hills Townhomes will be traditional with a decidedly European Country character. Exterior siding materials will be stucco and brick. Exterior trim will be cedar. Every effort is made to give each townhouse its own distinctive facade by the use of appropriate architectural features such as bay windows, shutters, porches, beams and brackets, garage door treatments, etc. To further individualize each unit, color selection of stucco, brick and trim will change from unit to unit. Colors will be muted, earth tones. The estimated price range of the units is $150,000 to $220,000. Marketing time is expected to be 24 months. The common area and building exteriors will be maintained by the homeowners association, including lawn and shrub care, snow removal, driveway and street maintenance, roof replacement, exterior painting, etc. There is proposed a lawn sprinkler system. Mailboxes will be clustered at 3 locations within the site, garbage service will be contracted with 1 hauler using light-weight trucks. Pickup will be at each individual unit. The project is proposed to be phased as follows: Phase 1 (11 units) - Blocks 1, 2, 7 Phase 2 (11 units) - Blocks 3, 4, 8 Phase 3 (12 units) - Blocks 5, 6, 9 The sanitary sewer serves the site from 2 existing manholes in Lake Susan Hills Drive through an 8" PVC pipe. Individual services are 4" PVC pipe. Water service is provided by connection to the 10" main in Lake Susan Hills Drive through a 6" line, which will be looped. Individual services are 1" copper pipe with standard curb box. Two fire hydrants are proposed in the project. ..i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) , ••• ( SS. •.� COUNTY OF 'it;.AA(3 ) ..v.....:..... .. ............ . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I day of Dte.E,..‘1.—nk , 1987, by JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife. B.�t1 :0(1. /NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson, P.A. 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange _ South St. Paul, MN 55075 (612) 455-1661 •, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor BY: Don Ashworth, City Manager LAKE SUSAN HILLS BY: A partner (/ JAMES A.CURRY (1/0-1 BARBARA CURRY O STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1987, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) NOTARY PUBLIC ( ss. COUNTY 011; 4-,<, ) foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i `� day ofC.�;��/l:';:Y/'y 1987, by .J;?.:�-%� ;; it f partner of Lake Susan Hills, a Minnesota general partnership on,its behalf. • r4;-..;.:7744737471=74174;74/- 7 BARBARA FISHER NOTARY PUBLIC { NOTARY Fell:—MINNESOTA � HENNE?IN CCi.lwTY �1•• My CommisLaon Expires J�iy 19 tfg2. -8- F. Due to the preliminary nature of many of the exhibits and plans and the timing of the overall Development, addendums to this Agreement may be required to address concerns not specifically set forth herein. G. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. H. The Developer represents to the City that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that a state environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental _ entity or agency determines that a federal or state impact statement or any other review, permit, or approval is required, the Developer shall — prepare or obtain it at its own expense. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and reasonable attorney' s fees, that the City may incur in assisting in preparation. 15 . Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, their employees or agents , or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address: 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, Minnesota 55435 . Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Clerk or mailed to the City by certified or registered mail in care of the City Clerk at the following address: P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 . -7- /4 (2?5_ bills submitted to it by the City for such reimbursements within sixty (60) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all development work until the bills are paid in full . Bills not paid within sixty (60) days shall be subject to an eight (8%) percent per annum interest charge. 14 . Miscellaneous. A. Breach of any material term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, plats, and certificates of occupancy. B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Planned Unit Development Agreement is for any reason held invalid as a result of a challenge brought by the Developer, its agents or assigns, the City may, at its option, declare the entire Agreement null and void and approval of the Final Development Plan shall thereby be revoked. C. The action or inaction of any party shall not consti- tute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council . Any party's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement after expiration of time in which the work is to be completed shall not be a waiver or release. D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded in the Carver County Recorder's Office. E. This Agreement shall be liberally construed to protect the public's interest. -6- 1 7 S- - 10. Variations from Approved Plans. Minor variances from the approved plans may be approved by the City's Planning Director. — Substantial departures from the approved plans shall require an amend- ment to the Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 11. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, and officers a license to enter the plat to inspect the work _ to be done by the Developer and to perform all work required hereunder if Developer fails to perform in accordance herewith. — 12 . Utility, Pond, and Drainage Easements. The Developer shall dedicate to the City at the time of final plat approvals utility, drainage, and ponding easements located within the plat, including access, as required to serve the plat. 13 . Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from claims by the Developer and third parties, including, but not limited to, lot purchasers, other property owners, contractors, subcontractors, and materialmen, for damages sustained, costs incurred, or injuries resulting from approval of the — Agreement, the development, final plats, plans and specifications, and from the resulting construction and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City, its officers, agents, and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees. The Developer shall pay in full all -5- / C. Wetlands Nos. 14-10 and 23-01 as shown in Exhibit "C." shall be preserved in their natural state. D. The following shall be the maximum percentage of allowable impervious surface: Outlot A 32%, Outlot B 30%, Outlot C 31%, and Outlot D 27%. E. The Developer shall provide $500. 00 of landscaping per multiple family unit and $150. 00 per single family unit. 7 . Effect of Planned Unit Development Approval. For five (5) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedications of the development unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted _ by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedicating requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. 8. Phased Development. The Developer shall develop the development in eleven (11) phases in accordance with the EAW. No earth moving or other development shall be done in any phase prior to approval of final plats and development contract for the phase by the City. 9. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the proposed development complies with all applicable City, County, Metropolitan, State, and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances, and Environmental Regulations. The Developer agrees to comply with such laws and regulations. -4- /-5 JPS if 5 . Trail and Sidewalk Development. The Developer shall dedicate trails and sidewalks throughout the Development to the City as indicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan. This dedication satisfies the City's trail dedication fee requirements. Trails shall be completed at — the time street improvements are constructed in the phase where the trails and sidewalks or portions thereof are located. The Developer shall construct the following trails and sidewalks: (1) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan. (2) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Audobon Road; and an eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard. (3 ) Five (5) foot wide concrete off-street trail-sidewalk along one side of all internal streets except cul- de-sacs .when the streets are constructed. (4) , Twenty (20) foot wide bituminous off-street trail easement on the west side of Powers Boulevard. This trail segment shall only be constructed if ordered by the City Council. If ordered, the Developer will convey the easement to the City without cost, but the _ City will pay for the construction. Construction timing will be at the discretion of the City Council . 6. Additional Conditions of Approval. — A. The Developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping, — and setbacks from lot lines. B. The Developer shall not damage or remove any trees except as indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved by the City and submitted with each plat. Trees shall be protected from destruction by snow fences, flagging, staking, or other similar means during grading and construction. -3- /-</ a S • high density multiple family residential property shall not exceed 375, or a density greater than 17. 4 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the development of the high density multiple family residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-12 Zoning District. C. Multiple Family (Mixed Medium Density Residential) . The - development shall provide a minimum of 23 . 6 acres of mixed medium density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density greater than 9 . 3 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the development of the mixed medium density residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-8 Zoning District. 4 . Parks. The Developer shall dedicate to the City Outlot F (18 . 1 acres) , Outlot G (9 . 8 acres) , Outlot H (3 . 9 acres) , and Outlot E. A credit of 6. 7 acres for park dedication will be given for Outlot E. Unless otherwise required by the City, conveyances of the park land shall be made when the final plat, wherein a park is located, is signed by the City. The land shall be platted as Outlots and transferred to the City by warranty deed. The Developer, at its sole cost, shall grade the land for the City in accordance with a timetable and plans to be furnished by the City. The Developer shall be given a credit of 50% of the park fee per dwelling unit in the plat for the conveyance of the above described land to the City. The balance of the park dedication fees shall be paid in cash in an amount and at the time required by City ordinance and policies in effect when final plats are approved. -2- c 41-7- CA w,,� '� lf� r PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, dated November 16, 1987 , between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City") , and LAKE SUSAN HILLS, a Minnesota general partnership, and JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife (the "Developer") . 1. Request for Planned Unit Development Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a Planned Unit Development to be known as "LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PUD" (the "Development") on the land legally described on the attached Exhibit "A". 2 . Planned Unit Development Concept Approval. The City hereby— grants general Concept Plan approval of the plan attached as Exhibit "B". Approval is subject to the following: development and final stage approval , a negative declaration of the EAW, compliance with the EAW review findings and compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Except as modified herein, each plat shall also be subject to the standards of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as may be amended from time to time. — 3. Density and Use. The following densities are approximate and subject to change: A. Single Family Residential . The total number of single family lots in the development shall not exceed 411. Except as modified herein, single family lots shall be developed in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the RSF Zoning District. B. Multiple Family (High Density Residential) . The development shall provide a minimum of 21. 5 acres of high density multiple family residential units. The total number of dwellinisa ts-3f NOV 1 J i?87 — r1 1 /16/87 CITY OF 5CHANHASSEM �� , /4-77-74(„4,,,, -A IT' .2Z R1,t. 0 , I =- a � .--1-t 161 r aA — �y.nean P."Q,s f _ J."' r.� DaaJ� \ / CITY P,>glr_ OUTLO Ctz-no�N A ooabvo, �ti a1L CS71Cu) �O /• LASAc.. A 4141e11 OUT l '' / CI LCTIF �i ©i DoT G 3rd ... v ego �� /- �O_4o P� -•� /A.-j,jfj�'/ .. _..j, ___. • 0 ,- __ • „,.._ ,__..:._ ,. top ...1 AL Sp "IIPIPIPAr otrrt-cri •A't + ItLVf? ,e�______ COiii !. , , Iwo..., ,, ,, �.'LIM ir � �� ,� � � �.�our Lcrr sees � 1 d, a eer�s ���.���.�Ait o �►�s �� 1 0©© s 40 ea' idav,:-„,-I- _mot r 4 ko iii rs IN 1111 101 liaviliWri 11‘14 sii r. 011/ iket,7 ea pm 10 -45 .. .,0 em, a - "V al ec/ 0;'4„..u.,v4r.,461 ., MI I j .1 'Mame% -•., NJ ° mew •• 3 gillAwip 1 / 14 V-1 v — !�• 40 �a a �� ��6 �� a �� �� ir 1A/y e�� 41,„ a .., , 101 VI* lb P0 • Pu0�1c \ S 7A. '' ( i� Jn CL\\ 1,0 4 / Q --„,/------- 0� .1.. \ M•a MIS.clu, De till If...Mu NIS ITV \ C / r---`^�'« Mn�.�• «1 v e HISLLQiL.QI QAIL IlNucf MI d \\ 0 r.. . 1.11....w•w 1. ...• .• .•»...'.w.«.1•f a \ V •...»....v..••...... •11.. \ us 111.K. w l.•..••......1....• .•N. (� \ .� A • ..afl•a.MI 1).a K. Get S1.9 st. • •11�':' »•t..»:::•.60 • w•.•• .......r..« Irr � 0 i�, Milt Mca I.... c1..ac. • •1 4.11••••••• ••• 1.J K. .a.•.....•••.1 1.I.foot.•••••••••ie..wo il IVl \ ell.4.11.11.LK w••11/1111••••n I '�� Vuu cufuy .•.:.f.•. •sw.wr.....«.1 (I( 1 L_„,_\- �\ w•w.•Nm.f rwN.w.w. .lw .w.r « 1 • Iw'.ul.)...w..•.1NI Yw •...w.••.».w a 'a1.c.....a«.r. 1 `\\\ I I..w 1.1.MI,.It.1.fw••OW '••• LVMOa�,, �`V�. • II.MK.ut..0 of a.1a•w •.•••awlK. lw.1 f_......k • • • •••..r .K..Na11 1,a•..1..••1...... ur n....a 4TTA ciIEAvT d DD-_- _ )amesRHilli L,�[ lLi ►L1TM[IAMP AIME SUSAN MtlL7• = see.�Va►f�■a. b• _�Ll:� c :='' PLANNERS ENGINEERS/SURVEIORS`..... Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 15 24. The street pavement design shall be reviewed and, if necessary, redesigned by a professional soils engineer after review of the subgrade. The applicant shall submit to the City written documentation from the soils engineer that the street design will meet or exceed a 7-ton design. 25. The utility construction plans shall be designed to extend sanitary sewer for the entire site from the existing stub provided in Lake Susan Hills Drive. 26. Many of the proposed lot lines encroach upon the building setback line. The lot lines should be modified to avoid encroaching into the building setback areas. No decks or any portion of the dwellings may encroach into the City's drainage and utility easements. 27. Upon completion of the utilities improvements, the applicant shall supply the city with as-built construction plans.'" _ ATTACHMENTS _ 1. Reduced concept PUD. 2. PUD contract. _ 3. Narrative from applicant. 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated April 6, 1995. 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated April 6, 1995. -- 6. Notice of public hearing and property owners notified. 7. Plans dated March 20, 1995. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 14 minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 19. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way or utility and drainage easements without approval by the city and the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement. 20. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. The proposed stormwater treatment pond shall be relocated to the south end of the wetland. 21. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety — purposes. The pond shall be sized to accommodate the storm runoff from Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition which drains into the wetland from the south. 22. Water quantity and quality connection fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP requirements. Credits for SWMP fees will be evaluated at the time of final construction plan review. 23. The final grading plan shall be revised to incorporate the following: a. Relocation of the stormwater treatment pond to the south end of the wetlands. The stormwater treatment pond shall be expanded to accommodate runoff from Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition. The applicant shall be credited against the storm fees for the oversizing of the stormwater pond. b. Site grading shall be revised to minimize the amount of earthwork to create the building pads. This may result in limiting the type of dwellings to ramblers and/or lookouts on the east and south ends of the project. c. The drainage pattern and site grades adjacent to Powers Boulevard shall be compatible with the future upgrading plans for Powers Boulevard. d. Berms shall be incorporated around the perimeter of the site adjacent to Powers Boulevard. e. Grading shall be eliminated within the wetland buffer strip areas. Erosion control fence shall be placed outside of the buffer strip. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 13 width shall be widened to 26 feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. Issuance of permits and inspection of the utility lines will be performed by the city's Building Department. The streets and utilities, except the ponding areas, storm sewer outlet and pipe systems, shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The applicant will need to incorporate cross access and maintenance agreements in the homeowners covenants to provide access to all the parcels. 12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post _ developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if _ sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 14: The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 15. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the state Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Highway Department, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units which are not adjacent to a storm pond or wetland. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 18, The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for the ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 12 7. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted which provides berming along Powers Boulevard (CR 17) and Lake Susan Hills Drive. The agreement also states that the applicant shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per multiple family unit. The applicant shall provide the city with a cost estimate for the required landscaping. 8. Fire Marshal conditions: _ a. Install "No Parking Fire Lane" sign on all private roads in compliance with Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 (copy enclosed). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. b. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review. c. Fire hydrant changes - contact Fire Marshal for additional fire hydrants and their specific locations. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new "T" intersection. The remaining fire hydrants shall be relocated with equal spacing. Fire hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. 9. Building Official conditions: a. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to �- issuance of any building permits. b. Furnish details on each size of dwelling unit. These details should include exterior dimensions, overhangs, exterior openings and proposed optional additions. Designate which unit will be constructed on which lots. These details must be supplied prior to preliminary plat approval. 10. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 11. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and approval. The streets shall be constructed in accordance to the City's private driveway ordinance for multi-family zoning (Ordinance No. 209). Radii at all intersections shall be 20 feet. The street Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 11 of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. MISCELLANEOUS Many of the proposed lot lines encroach upon the building setback line. The lot lines should be modified to avoid encroaching into the building setback areas. PARK AND RECREATION As part of the whole Lake Susan Hills PUD, a significant amount of park land was dedicated to the city and trails were to be developed by the applicant. Therefore, the PUD contract requires no trail fees and 'fa park fees. No park land will be required with this proposal. RECOMMENDATION PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL _ Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat of 7.29 acres into 34 lots and one outlot (PUD #87-3) and Site Plan Review #95-7 approval of 34 units (9 structures) as shown on the plans dated March 20, 1995, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Amend the PUD contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot — exceed 35%. 2. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative. Introduce some variation among the rear of buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, adding dormers, or color. 3. The applicant should submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private streets. 4. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 5. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication. The PUD contract requires no trail fees and 1 park fees. 6. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 10 City for review and formal approval by the City Council, in conjunction with the final plat approval. The City is also concerned about proper maintenance and care of the proposed utility improvements. The City may be contacted to perform annual maintenance functions to the private utilities for a fee. If the applicant wishes to pursue this option he should contact the City Engineer to put together a cooperative agreement for maintenance purposes. Upon completion of the utility improvements, as-built construction plans should be supplied to the City for record purposes. Since the applicant has proposed utility and street improvements are to be private, a development contract will not be necessary. However, staff recommends that the applicant enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide security to guarantee street and boulevard restoration and compliance to the conditions of approval. STREETS The site is proposed to be accessed from Lake Susan Hills Drive via a private street system. Street access from Lake Susan Hills Drive is proposed in two locations to provide a looped street. The applicant will need to incorporate cross-access and maintenance agreements in the homeowners covenants to provide access to all the parcels. The streets are proposed to be 25 feet wide from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. This results in a drive aisle of less than 24 feet which is the City's minimum private street width. The street will need to be widened at least by one foot. The width of the proposed street is too narrow to permit parking. Therefore, the street shall be posted for no parking in accordance with the City's Fire Marshal. Additional traffic signage and a street lighting plan will need to be incorporated into the overall development plan. The City will install the necessary traffic signs and bill the developer for the sign materials. The street grades appear to meet the City's private street ordinance. The radii at all street intersections should be 20 feet wide to provide adequate turning movements. The plans propose a street pavement design which staff believes may be too light of a street section for a 7-ton street design. Staff suggests the final pavement design be reviewed and redesigned if necessary by a professional soils engineer after the street subgrade has been constructed. Written documentation from the soils engineer attesting that the street section will meet or exceed a 7-ton roadway design will be required prior to paving of the streets. EASEMENTS The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as storm water ponding areas. Specific review Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 — Page 9 walkout-type dwellings on the easterly portion of the site. The plans propose cutting 10 feet in the middle of the site and transferring the material to the south and east sides of the development. This will result in a fairly level site as compared to the original grades. Staff believes that the site grading can be reduced overall. The result of the reduced grading will — maintain the existing topography but reduce the number of walkout-type dwellings. Grading is also proposed within the wetland buffer strip. The plans should be modified to prohibit grading within the buffer strip. _ It appears that the site is to be graded with the initial phase of development. It is unclear whether or not material will need to be exported from or imported to the site. If material is needed to be imported or exported from the site, haul routes will need to be submitted for review and approval by the City. Rock construction entrances should be incorporated into the — plans at both access points onto Lake Susan Hills Drive. The applicant should be aware no access will be permitted onto Powers Boulevard (County Road 17). EROSION CONTROL An erosion control plan has been incorporated on the grading and drainage plan and submitted to the city for review and approval. Staff recommends that the applicant use the city's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after — grading to prevent erosion. The catch basins prior to the first lift of asphalt shall be protected by means of hay bales or silt fence. The erosion control fence adjacent the wetlands should be modified to the City's Type III. Additional erosion control fencing may be required — behind the curbs during construction of the buildings. All erosion control fencing shall be installed outside the wetland buffer zone to prohibit disruption of the wetland buffer strip. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available from Lake Susan Hills Drive. The — plans propose on extending the sewer and water lines from two locations in Lake Susan Hills Drive. Staff believes the westerly connection to the sanitary sewer system in Lake Susan Hills Drive can and should be deleted. There is adequate grade to service the site from the easterly connection point. Water extension is proposed from both locations on Lake Susan Hills Drive as well. Staff believes the connection at both location points is warranted in _ order to provide looping of the water system. The proposed utility improvements within the development will be private and not be maintained by the City. However, the utility improvements are fairly substantial and will impact the City's existing infrastructures in Lake Susan Hills Drive. Therefore, the proposed utility improvements should be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications should be required and submitted to the Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 8 Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of $2,975 per developable acre. The area of the property subject to these fees is 7.3 acres, therefore, the proposed development would result in a water quantity connection charge of $21,718. — DRAINAGE Most of the site will continue to drain to the wetland. Much of the original drainage areas to this wetland (approximately 24.9 acres) has been diverted from this wetland due to development, and therefore, it is important to maintain drainage from this site to the wetland in order to sustain some of its hydrology. The southern 130 feet of the site will continue to drain south and the far western 130 feet will drain to the County Road 17 ditch. The City has advised the applicant to obtain the plans for the County Road 17 reconstruction to make sure that the drainage patterns and grades are compatible. The wetland also receives stormwater runoff from the Lake Susan Hills development to the north, south and east. None of the storm sewers pretreat the runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The City has an opportunity here to pretreat the southerly storm sewer system from Lake Susan Hills 2nd Addition by relocating the sediment pond to the east side of the development just south of the wetland. In addition, staff believes that this is a better location for the storm pond due to safety concerns. We believe the proposed stormwater pond is too close to Lake Susan Hills Drive. By relocating the storm sewer pond, the unit on Lot 4, Block 2 will have to be relocated or lost. Staff still recommends the proposed sediment pond should be relocated to the south of the wetland and oversized to accommodate and pretreat storm water runoff from the adjacent Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition. The applicant will be given credit against their SWMP fees for the oversizing of the stormwater pond. The proposed sediment trap appears to be large enough to trap up to 54% of phosphorus from the 6.25 acres draining to the wetland. Along with the hydrologic calculations, the City requires the computations for the water quality ponding from Walker's pondnet as part of the final plat. In addition, detailed storm calculations for the individual catch basins will need to be supplied to the city to verify pipe sizing and catch basin spacing. GRADING The site has been employed in agricultural practices in the past. The property slopes for the most part to the east and south. There are no significant topographic features on the site except the wetland. The plans propose on significantly regrading the site to accommodate Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 7 WETLANDS — There is one wetland on-site that is characterized as an ag-urban wetland by the City's inventory. The wetland is approximately 1.7 acres, however, 1.5 acres of the wetland is on the property. There will not be any alterations to this wetland as a result of the development. A sediment trap will be constructed on the west side of the wetland to reduce the nutrient loading to the wetland. A buffer strip is required around all wetlands in the City. The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before building construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future — development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan — uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the water quality requirements will be constructed by the applicant, the SWMP water quality fees will be waived. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 6 * If the applicant was permitted to increase the hard surface coverage from 27% as permitted by the PUD to 35% as permitted in the R-8 district, proposed plans will have to be revised to reduce the hard surface coverage by 2%. Landscaping and Tree Preservation The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan. The current site is devoid of vegetation. The Landscaping and Tree Preservation requirements state that a landscape buffer is required when a subdivision plat is contiguous with a collector street. Required buffering shall consist _ of berms and landscape materials consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or a tree preservation area. The landscaping plan meets all those requirements, however, staff is recommending the applicant incorporates the use of berms along Powers Boulevard and Lake — Susan Hill Drive. Appropriate financial security will be required. The landscaping ordinance requires a minimum of 20% canopy coverage. The following — constitutes our calculation of the required forestation: The required post development canopy coverage is 20% or a total of 1.45 acres of tree — canopy. To meet the minimum canopy coverage requirements, the developer would need to develop a forestation plan for the site which would require the planting of 58 trees. — The PUD agreement states that the developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping, and setbacks from lot lines. The proposed ` landscaping plan provides an adequate landscaping buffer along the east edge of the property. The PUD agreement also states that the applicant shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per multiple family unit. The applicant shall provide the city with a cost estimate for the required landscaping. The proposed landscaping plan meets all ordinance and PUD requirements. Street lighting for the interior private streets is not shown on the site plan. Staff is recommending that before this item goes to the City Council, that a street lighting plan be prepared for staff review. Street lights will be required in accordance to City standards along the private streets. The applicant has stated in his narrative that street lighting is proposed to be residential type electric post lights in each front yard, operated by photocell. Street Names _ In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 — Page 5 — (subject site) could not exceed 27% impervious surface coverage. The proposed 34 lots are located in a cluster south of the site. The lot sizes for Block 1 through 5, exterior lots are 2,909.7 square feet. The interior lots are 2,713.8 square feet. The lot sizes for Block 6 through 9, exterior lots are 2,552.5 square feet and the interior lots are 2,376.5 square feet. — The townhome lots are located within a larger community owned parcel, shown as Outlot A on the preliminary plat. Outlot A contains the private streets and open space. — The density of the site is 4.6 units/acre (gross). Since it is a townhome development with private streets and mutual open space, the density calculated was gross density rather than the typical net density. The impervious surface coverage of the site is at 37%. The PUD contract stated that the density could not exceed 9.3 units/acre and that the impervious could not exceed 27%. As stated previously, the density is not as high as it could be, but the — impervious coverage exceeds the PUD contract. The R-8 zoning district standards permits a maximum hard surface coverage of 35%. Staff will be recommending the applicant be permitted a maximum hard surface coverage of 35% as permitted in the R-8 ordinance. If the — percentage of impervious surface coverage is permitted to be increased, the PUD contract shall have to be amended to allow the impervious surface coverage of Outlot D to be 35%. The applicant will have to amend the plans to reduce the hard surface coverage by 2%. — The townhome units are maintaining a 25' setback form Powers Boulevard, Lake Susan Hills Drive and the existing single family lots to the east (which are part of the Lake Susan Hills — PUD). The 25' setback is from the R-8 zoning regulations which the PUD contract states to follow unless otherwise amended. There are no internal setbacks since the site is serviced internally by a private street. — All 34 units will be served via private street. — COMPLIANCE TABLE Ordinance PUD Project Proposal Hard Surface Coverage 35% 27% 37%* Setback from Collector 25 feet NA 25 _ Internal Private Streets NA NA NA — Density 8 units 9.3 units 4.6 units Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 _ Page 4 mixed medium density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density greater than 9.3 units/acre. To date, only 71 units have been approved, leaving a total number of mixed medium density residential dwelling units of 150. Except as modified by the PUD contract, _ the development shall be in accordance with the standards and requirements of the R-8 Zoning District. The only regulations concerning medium density modified by the PUD contract was the impervious surface coverage that it could not exceed certain amounts, Outlot — B - 30%, Outlot C - 31% and Outlot D - 27%, and that the density could not be greater than 9.3 units/acre. The R-8 zoning district permits up to 35% hard surface coverage and up to 8 units/acre density. SITE PLAN APPROVAL — General Site Plan/Architecture The site is 7.29 acres with a gross density of 4.6 units per acre. The 4.6 units per acre is — under the allowed PUD density of 9.3 units per acre and the R-8 ordinance of 8 units/acre. The applicant is proposing to develop this site with 34 owner occupied units. The units will — be one-story townhomes, each with attached 2 car garages. The townhomes in Blocks 1 through 5 are 1,590 square foot one story with a full walkout basement. Each unit has a deck in the rear. Townhomes in Block 6 through 9 are 1,319 square foot one-story units with a full basement. Each unit has a deck or a patio at the rear. The exterior siding materials on both units will be stucco and brick. Exterior trim will be cedar. Each townhome has its own — distinctive facade through the use of different architectural features such as bay windows, shutters, porches, beams and brackets, and garage door treatments. To further individualize each unit, the applicant proposes to use changing color selections of stucco, brick and trim. — The colors are proposed to be muted, earth tomes. Staff is recommending that the applicant introduce similar variation among building's rear elevations, through the shape of windows, adding louvers, adding dormers, or color. PRELIMINARY PLAT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL _ Lots/Density The applicant is proposing to subdivide 7.29 acres of property zoned PUD-R into 34 zero lot — line parcels for townhome units. The property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density (4-8 Units/Acre). The subject site is Outlot D from the Lake Susan Hills PUD and was created as a mixed medium density site. The PUD contract for Lake Susan — Hills PUD stated that the mixed medium density sites (this is the last mixed medium density outlots left) could not exceed an overall density of 9.3 units/acre, and specifically, Outlot D Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 3 The proposed 34 units result in density of 4.6 units/acre. The impervious surface coverage is 37%. Therefore, the density is not as high as it could be, but the impervious coverage exceeds the PUD contract. The R-8 zoning district standards allows a maximum of 35% impervious coverage. This proposal exceeds the maximum permitted in the R-8 zoning district by 2%. The applicant is aware of the situation mainly because the same situation took place with the two prior developments, Prairie Creek Twinhomes and Powers Place. In the case of Prairie Creek Twinhomes, the PUD allowed a 31% hard surface coverage, and the applicant was permitted 24 units which required a 40% hard surface coverage. In the case of Powers Place, the PUD allowed 30% hard surface coverage, and the applicant was permitted 48 units which required a 35% hard surface coverage. In the case of Lake Susan Hills — Townhomes 1st Addition, staff will be recommending the applicant be permitted a maximum hard surface coverage of 35% as permitted in the R-8 district. The property slopes for the most part to the east and south. There are no significant topographic features on the site except the wetland. The plans propose on significantly regrading the site to accommodate walkout-type dwellings on the easterly portion of the site. The plans propose cutting 10 feet in the middle of the site and transferring the material to the south and east sides of the development. This will result in a fairly level site as compared to the original grades. Staff believes that the site grading can be reduced overall. The result of the reduced grading will maintain the existing topography but reduce the number of walkout- type dwellings. _ The landscaping plan is well designed. Landscaping has been provided to screen the development from Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan Hills Drive. Staff recommends the _. applicant incorporate berms along Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan Hills Drive. The applicant will be required to pay park and trail fees in lieu of park land dedication. Staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions outlined in the report. BACKGROUND In 1987, the city approved a concept PUD approval for Lake Susan Hills. The PUD permitted up to 411 single family units, created 3 outlots for medium density units and one outlot for high density units (Attachment #1). The single family lots have been platted in 9 additions continuously since PUD approval. One of the outlots (Outlot C) designated for medium density units was platted in April 1993 for 24 units. The second outlot (Outlot B), also designated for medium density units was platted on April 10, 1995 for 48 units. The remaining medium and high density outlots have not been developed. A PUD contract, adopted as part of the approval, listed the outlots and their proposed uses. Outlots B (9.7 acres), C (4.4 acres) and D (7.29 acres) were designated for medium density development. _ The PUD contract states that the development shall provide a minimum of 23.6 acres of Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant, Jasper Development, is requesting preliminary plat and site plan approval to construct a 34 unit townhome housing project on Outlot D. Outlot D was designated as a medium density site as part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD approval. The townhomes are proposed to be owner occupied and to be located on 34 zero lot line parcels. The housing style and density generally falls under the townhome development type buildings. The 7.29 acre site is located south of Prairie Creek Townhomes and Lake Susan Hills Drive, north of Prairie Knoll Park, west of Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition Single Family Homes, and east of Powers Boulevard. The gross density is 4.6 units per acre. Access will be provided — by three private streets located on community property (Outlot A) owned and maintained by a homeowners association. The site is currently zoned PUD-R8, Medium Density Residential and utilities are available for the area. The proposal is for 34 one-story townhomes, each with attached 2 car garages. The townhomes in Blocks 1 through 5 are 1,590 square foot one story with a full walkout basement. Each unit has a deck in the rear. Townhomes in Block 6 through 9 are 1,319 square foot one-story units with a full basement. Each unit has a deck or a patio at the rear. The exterior siding materials on both units will be stucco and brick. Exterior trim will be cedar. Each townhome has its own distinctive facade through the use of different architectural features such as bay windows, shutters, porches, beams and brackets, and garage door treatments. To further individualize each unit, the applicant proposes to use changing color selections of stucco, brick and trim. The colors are proposed to be muted, earth tomes. Staff is recommending that the applicant introduce similar variation among building's rear elevations, through the shape of windows, adding louvers, adding dormers, or color. A homeowners association will be established to maintain the site and units and enforce their covenants and restrictions. There are two regulations which influence the development of this site. A PUD contract and R-8 zoning district regulations. The PUD contract has specific conditions which must be followed with the development of each phase of the PUD. The PUD contract states that the mixed medium density sites of the PUD, which the subject site is, must meet the regulations of the R-8 zoning district, unless otherwise specified in the PUD contract. Within the PUD contract there appears to be a conflict. The PUD contract states that the medium density sites cannot exceed 9.3 units/acre and also states that the impervious surface coverage of Outlot D cannot exceed 27%. It would almost be impossible to reach 9.3 units/acre with an impervious — surface coverage of not more than 27%, unless the units were built vertically. Throughout the staff reports and Planning Commission/City Council minutes for the original approval, it was stated that 9.3 was the maximum density allowed and the applicant was not guaranteed this density. cGLYNN goP m Ra. YaI OP '�1101118144g#44,11. ,::= 0,, PRioN..77%_,, -ec 70, V L R - 'Opp i, PARK I _ sb) - IC. -' ,.. cj` I IPVT ��� t ''`. - o- 4EssE __-:-.-__ ... est elliikyr O „ UFFOLK !7 • . �• •\,,;$•M %��A� ��►� `✓�,�`�- ` • 4i >�y�,+- �..-' \ ft' v,a1• LAKE SUSAN ;11 A! PItk .40,,Auliti boo I. RD wor P o er ow 'zr-:---- ----- ------i„1-10, � Pr� ' ' 4� 1� �s � �F , 4 ,aial • MON L nH� ` �.lre42 14 i$!!! i war �� y etiiii 4' I ���•��,,.',,��� ie ice-• ` �•Air_"�s _iiii -aii kW. ait linfilb • :A< ti 114 2 �FL•MWG=DR 1.1.disp,,'ara Q A.,,ilk,, itimmait us 7v . mum � � Imo . al ri.„ COUA7 '-----477:,;A:.:4....!7*-- •/'` 4 Ir 1..1 Si c&.. T 1 mil L ,4kil . Ly.A, ....Nil >ihi, r op 4,... „„,_�bme.- vaRc�----I --1 (cap CN4 %RK //ill' , . \ o , PJ 1 Q� J- I BAND/ME' t , \ \ ' COMMON/TY N/ , PARK k 9 `— 9 i iPAYO .4 / I , �� CITYE' O F PC DATE: April 19, 1995 , • CHAI' HAEI' CC DATE: May 8, 1995 CASE#: 87-3 PUD,95-7 SPR WARIaftii'tEmpar -so - -.� STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide 7.29 acres into 34 lots and one outlot and Site Plan Approval for 34 Units (9 structures) I.— Owner Occupied Townhomes - Multifamily Development, Lake — Z Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition a - LOCATION: East of Powers Boulevard, and South of Lake Susan Hills Drive — a— Q APPLICANT: Jasper Development Corporation 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN 55387 PRESENT ZONING PUD, Planned Unit Development — ACREAGE: 7.29 acres DENSITY: 4.6 u/a (gross) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD; Prairie Creek Townhomes and Lake Susan Hills Drive Q S - PUD; Prairie Knoll Park _ E - PUD; Single Family Homes, Lake Susan Hills West Q ' 2nd W - PUD; Powers Boulevard - W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. _ PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is vacant, devoid of vegetation, and contains a wetland. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Medium Density Residential . Kathleen Mary Koch Kenneth & D. Earhart Edward & Carol Jannusch _ 6870 Utica Lane 6880 Utica Lane 6831 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Scott & Joanne Reinertson R. Chris & Mary Rumble Thomas & Linda Trusty 6801 Utica Terrace 6861 Utica Lane 6871 Utica Lane — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Kenneth & Karen Anderson Richard C. Ersbo Mark & B. Rasmussen 6881 Utica Lane 1211 Lake Lucy Road 6729 Mulberry Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ Steven & Sharon Veno Wesley & Pamela Johnson Mark & Pamela Wagner 6730 Mulberry Cir. E. 6719 Mulberry Cir. E. 6735 Mulberry Cir. E. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Greg & Martha Pomerantz Barry & Murlyn Pace David & J. Meyer — 1321 Heather Ct. 1331 Heather Ct. 6683 Mulberry Cir. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven & D. Manning Michael & S. Arbisi Roy & J. Anderson 6687 Mulberry Circle 6693 Mulberry Circle E. 6695 Mulberry Cir. E. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David J. Batt Lundgren Bros. Const. Jeffrey & M. Elder 6699 Mulberry Cir. E. 935 Wayzata Blvd. E. 6696 Mulberry Cir. _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — David Ronnei 6666 Mulberry Cir. E. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & Lois Petersen Wendall & Blanche Gravlun Harry Murphy 6650 Powers Blvd. 6270 Blue Jay Circle 1215 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Russell G. Kohman William & Juliann Infanger Lawrence & Kathleen Kerber _ 6730 Powers Blvd. 6740 Powers Blvd. 6420 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Melvin Allrich & Bonnie Thomas Jennie Hays Layton & Madelyn Paine 6681 Powers Blvd. 6691 Powers Blvd. 1092 Shenendoah Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Paul & Sheryll Kreuter State of MN in Trust Russell Paul y 1090 Carver Beach Road c/o Carver Co. Auditor 1031 Carver Beach Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 600 East 4th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 Stanley & Joy Javurek Randy Tikalsky James Manders 6780 Redwing Lane 6801 Chaparral Lane 6791 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jan & P. Mahin Jeffrey & Laura Bros Pallar & Sokkha Ngep 6781 Chaparral Lane 6771 Chaparral Lane Chanthan Hour Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 6770 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Gary Mundahl Craig & Stacie Prescher Ingrid Gunnbjorg Stephens 6780 Chaparral Lane 6790 Chaparral Lane 6800 Chaparral Lane — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Joseph & Kathleen Hamilton Allan & Connie Ott Steven & Sandrea Kvidera 6820 Chaparral Lane 6840 Chaparral Lane 6850 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mark Lathrop Mary Gerk Robert Boe 6850 Utica Lane 6831 Utica Lane 6801 Utica Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Daniel & Gwen Hennessey Gary & Ann O'Neill Bruce & Merridith Arnold — 6800 Utica Circle 6830 Utica Circle 6850 Utica Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 v Vietm . � ■j �,4 MIWNW� NOTICE OF PUBLIC - ars4 a„•_40...,,....... 4, :HEARING � � a �``: 1E4 II r ! . �s, PLANNING COMMISSION - E .laralir • MEETING .:�.►..� N10�� �� ►�. : Ind �� Wednesday, APRIL 19, 1995 host :,rim5liri ' 71• 10��■�■�I■ � 1; at 7:30 p.m. ��,,1� I SN l'M�MrII'(a��;�.`• O• .-,• li S EHS EH N�' �� CityHall Council Chambers .444 .,46.11.— % CIRCLE .s 690 Coulter Drive - — - � �1r1TW11� 1�1F�'�tai n�% — Project: Golden Glow Acres `�r� 2 P: K V- a ; Ri Developer: James Ravis WPM' X4. 111 Q�j . �� Pri 01111111 g6��.• X14! 1" Ari Location: 6660 Powers Boulevard �A•ik,,��lill I/Aid�- �! I ' pi ipaP ISM ri IT stl,W t. 41*1 AA TIN -riairkq i ..-: 1 io.itto .0 f „cr., Aw . _ I. we: :7"- ".--" UT% 41,7A.• Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to subdivide a 2.22 acre parcel into 4 lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6660 Powers Boulevard, Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following — steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. — Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. — Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 6, 1995. 1. 1/45 Vois2L 3. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAR 17 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CSAH _ 17 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-of- way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in"as good or better condition"than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. — 6. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right-of- way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. 7. As this area develops, the traffic on CSAH 17 will increase. The increased traffic will generate an increased noise level. The County would consider any type of noise abatement project, if necessary, to be the responsibility of the City or the developer. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plat for the proposed development. ( r Tc.s sv PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ; '- •?' CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE (612)361-1010 600 EAST 4TH STREET,BOX 6 FAX(612)361-1025 \ �. CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55316 • NNESO COUNTY OF CAI VEQ December 30, 1994 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer_, SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis Following are comments regarding the Golden Glow Acres Preliminary Plat transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated November 21, 1994: 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended — 100' 110' 120' 150' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 120' 140' 170' County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 (Powers Blvd.)is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The right of way shown on the plan includes a 100 foot corridor. The corridor as shown would meet the minimum recommended needs for an urban four lane roadway. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 2. Construction of the proposed driveway access with CSAH 17 is subject to the access permit requirements of Carver County. Carver County would require that the existing access be removed as shown on the plan. The preference of the County is to limit the number of accesses to the County Roads and have the accesses be public roads if possible. If there is any possibility of the house to the south outside the plat connecting to this new entrance, that would be desirable. RECEIVED Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer _:: 0 a 199 Printed on Recycled Paper Contains Minimum 10%Post Consumer Waste i:ITY OF CHANHASSEN City of Chanhassen, Planning Department Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II November 30, 1994 Page 2 6. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, — /9044-1 Joe Richter Hydrologist JR/cds c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann City of Chanhassen Shoreland File STATE OF 1[�(�JC� �© JZ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES _ METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO November 30, 1994 City of Chanhassen, Planning Department _ Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis, Lake Lucy (10-7P) , City of Chanhassen, Carver County (City #94-22 SUB and 94-7 WET) Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: We have reviewed the site plans (received November 23, 1994) for the above- referenced project (Section 2, T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. The project site does not contain any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands; therefore, no DNR permit is required. However, it appears there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. The project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on the project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 2. The site does not appear to be within a floodplain district. 3. The proposed plan does not indicate how the stormwater will be managed. You are advised that the DNR would object to having the stormwater routed directly to the WCA wetland. Stormwater sedimentation/treatment basins, or other appropriate stormwater treatment features, should be included in the stormwater management plan. If stormwater is routed directly to the wetland, it can cause sedimentation and water level bounces that are detrimental to wildlife values and water quality. 4. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 5. The project area appears to be within the 1000' shoreland district of Lake Lucy (10-7P) , a recreational development water. The development must be consistent with city's shoreland management regulations. In particular you should note: a. The project area (lots 3 and 4) contains steep slopes. Topographic alterations should be minimized in this area. b. The structures in the development should be screened using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. c. The applicant should be commended for planning to place a 10' buffer of natural vegetation around the WCA wetland. This buffe,x_strskilElp will improve wildlife habitat in the area and improve ttater quality of the wetland. CITY OF CHANHA55hIN AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MIflhFVaSCO• A Division of Arkla, Inc. Nom 1994 December 1, 1994 C:1 ? Vr 4r'HiNHASSFN Ms . Sharmin Al-Jaff Planner I — City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: 94-22 SUB and 94-7 WET Golden Glow Acres — James C. Ravis Dear Ms . Al-Jaff : — Enclosed is the subdivision print for this project with our gas mains shown in red. Individual service lines are not shown. Natural gas service is available to this development from the main shown on Powers Boulevard. No addition work is anticipated at this time unless requested by the builder or owner. The builder or owner should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco' s Residential Energy Services, 525-7607 or 342-5123 , to make application for natural gas service. Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal . Sincerely, • • 4101111P Mtios;41011"../ Richard J. !i on, P.E . Senior De• 'gn Engineer Engineering Services 612-342-5426 cc: Mary Palkovich Terry Jencks 700 West Linden Avenue P.O.Box 1165 Minneapolis,MN 55440-1165 — r CITY OF ., .APi ,41's -'y 4.--- ' y CHANHASSEN ,,._ ..:,:_ ; v , .... .r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 f (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Till Kimsal, Forestry Intern — DATE: April 11, 1995 SUBJ: Tree Inventory, Golden Glow Acres, James C. Ravis The applicant has submitted a tree inventory and canopy coverage calculation. Also noted on the plan are required replacement plantings to be done. All trees, excluding those in the front yard of the existing home, are along the property lines of the site. Since the new road will be following the southern and lower eastern lines, a number of trees are scheduled to be removed. The diameters range from four to 16 inches, not including a 48 inch willow that appears to be on the neighbor's property. Five trees ( 35, 36, 37, 38, and 45) have been included on the survey, but do not appear to be on the property being developed. Trees 35 through 38 have questionable survival chances. - , There will be a three to four foot cut for the roadway and the four trees are 2 to 10 feet from the edge of the cut. Since they appear to be on the neighbor's property, their removal can not be readily assumed. The applicant's canopy coverage calculations are in order and they will be required to plant 13 replacement trees as shown on the tree inventory. During construction, trees 51 through — 58 must be protected at all times by tree protection fencing. The same preservation principles shall be applied to trees near the existing house and along the proposed roadway. — Whether or not trees 35 through 38 and 45 will be included in the development plans must be resolved by the applicant considering they are not on the development property. Their removal or preservation may also make a slight difference in canopy coverage calculations. CITYOF - ,40, r — \- ... CHANHASSEN ,,,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317z (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal — DATE: November 23, 1994 SUBJ: Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis Planning Case 94-22 SUB and 94-7 WET 1 have reviewed the preliminary plat subdivision and have the following requirements: — 1. Submit street names to Public Safety for approval. — 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 3. Fire hydrant location is accepted. - - g:\safety'ml'goldglow.1 Sharmin Al-Jaff December 13 , 1994 Page 2 Recommendations : 1 . Revise Grading and Utility Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval . 2 . Revise the Grading and Utility Plan to show standard designations for dwellings . This should be done prior to final plat approval . 3 . Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits . enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo CITY OF \- - - _ CHANHASSEN' _ .t yam` t,„ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4- O- 1{. DATE: December 13 , 1994 SUBJECT: 94-22 SUB (Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis) I was asked to review the preliminary plat stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, NOV 17 1994, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project . Analysis : Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering _ Departments . The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance . Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed — dwelling types . These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process . I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations . _ In addition, a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes . -raw% vk -f c 1 c c nA C\ a.*Ltas s n b cth4a. Gs \\ Q- cc4, yS 5CA13 Si6� Y` el LA i r Q vu. yt4 s _L a 4 a v 2 G v cos 4 c.t Q S i s-r. S o "` C.0.N% cLcr 4. 'NM y w ► e c r w.'1 S Q-I c c. e94rd s - 4 - e$ �-E-e, eq s Qti.,. a.�n:�s �.a.Si Q O Q_ )Y'Oa.,QJ or c�.� 1 �� ► Q$ e w e.* l a+ti j S a.v e, b -42.1%-Q,01 S re � uLirQ.d to lain SQ.NJ S \v+.a S a Q. S lrab 1 Q. t\,► Q.42.s C hlac.k ta3EL.lw 4hC 13r0vs a `A ! ate to aC.1•:e.Yto +1. Q. cities kYQ. L G o y Q:v,a e ,Q, Co h t Q r, 0. . A r u` i..L&.'w d i- t Y, 42.8 S. \ A_. `y. e.*NnA.o Y Q.c ' 'V 42-"Y"1p j ck_ W YJ l`er r a-`e•S 1, v�4. c.Y e. 1111° . 4 ) t,-)42. .t..150 v c.s+ i g 4i e. 1'Y.c y i n y so c + t ke -e.x s4Z + ro.Q.S Oka_ 4r e ‘rG wGQY, / ROS Q. 4 1.g4 wo wlh )o ' . aw., 01! 41.j 10 lay. Cc- l t - . G--1.bud � Cre.$) w .el1 CJ ; {, ¢ S o w� i ,. cl a req.$ 1 S _" - 3 C u y r Q-wk 11 `M O V t n q +o C-3\0-v.-14 0.S S Q.?1 . be.1ie.ve. w Vavt. eL1p Icon 140-i lrv., e.,e t 5 k o S t o b j a.c t i e. s . TI, Q f c I l o w h 5 til i c.0\ I t f t s o {' -e Q, p la. v, 0.r 4. h `M. 3 NA,‘ l Y► Sz `4h : t 7 A 11 lof s w 1� 4.6ovar rnsoniS 4 k, t„,,) �.. ; d -t. se.l ct ; ti,., 814e. s ;5h o.v. ci ).‘ o \ IQ.c .NAA.Qxf. 3) T4, e_ -E `% V) SiNA9 tkaf toou( J 104 b 5 i h w •Ce \f-1 %A. o LA. cl � ►�� R ,r eo.. T h Q p r o LU o s a d IA la.13, r e Q u_ i r e S h ; vvt cts�a. C k a v.o e; o k- k ar 'e-x i S't, ( h`j t(1,44 C o Le. T Q Lt.:+ i t :t a d2 r o 4 a.,n,s VI% e a cre. . a e4- CAN eL.SSeh 1n a. CAA.c . cD gh; -icaxtly ovevt k 41, )3a.Ve %- ea.rs . Given + %S -_ c\-%ay.cale. 'E.o vkarily car t,L.r 11 ca. S _. * i - avL4 A S i �j (.ox\At i h c r e..a.S O i �n N+..{- c O n powers Ya 1v d ) vr• y wife_ c d e.(-14 t.a w w o 44- of d t0V Q W ►1QM LU s Y% N +Z.. SNA ev4 oLi iKy cwh ° 1p4" ;VAS K- aw »ears — t,a,S ` 1ti w� YJ 9-0 )p 1 4. `M o v i Y11 ►hi o "t VOL acv ! Coo-Sic. ItI arra QJ Wair INLhq 1. .1 L. j c \1►\cl v‘e.h . Tk i S * Lt o-4 rra.ws.40/ J4 r e e.r e x. [ 1 o f w►f \. O Y1 o_w o, Gt.M. wk.:rL i v{ticL( NW 0.1 1L `@rt 0.K G } 11 i S 4�Y3 r w\ l l a ( S o IA 0-Li i� v L.,. 5 Lai &cd rl a l "1-La-la ciS 1-4. \o o' v.^ t.. r Y Q. Q.nA'. h c Q.,r c $ $2.42. r a '€\•04.. r o 1•0 i v+'F t\. 42. o + Devv.a_rs - G - v _\ 1. o.'AJ S rV QLOrS ZIAc• S »Qc. i c- i ca (( 1 Gar G-OJo)i itj waw is act) t,u . kS ko � 9-VQ.1oo c w Q. it tko.-- — W oU. « t h �. S s b�Qiv►sior e_wA- v ► 1\ hav Q_ 0-1•S •€1+a:"- .Z �{ No✓e.rK Oer. igco Chan I. aSSe.h , al v. To . 5har►rnin_ Al - cYaf f .be. /ieve. f he, Co/Jowl-Al i n for n+a-E;o}, (sill assist you l`rt evo. Jc4_4.4-i413 fkQ. sLihdivis;o., ctpp ) icaf;ovt CGoJde.v, Acres) suht,, ffed rit a v e.j � v Ghat+la s s fa w b o. c Q.ease. wort. �or, ere� � o IitQ. iw a. rc,tra ! SPA* ih9 . ji r o v i cQ e.J c 4-4) ;4k o � 4 r�e, 10-t for o cLN L� i I cQ v• Q.x k a \to lad o h a tit� -boy. Le.s '€o y►a v e. a- t v`12- -1 &%`12, ci4ro$a.vv, L e w Q- r e. & b Jed t o cQ o f ► s 64j p ci rc,1i a sc'r.9 _ 'fr % - y3 re 1 ca_ e:d a-t 6660 10oLuev,5 Plvd 4.AS avt a.S *loiriv,1 1O-E , wtavt 11Qa.rs `Po w e,,r s 13 I v c) w A.s o„ Li.) rn a:In. 41 r rt 0 4.4 41 vv,oCha ra�e. kst, • II- also recetvea Snow p loW ► n9 pr ►ots1 + % Ypkga-+ o always bQ_ 0 r ► ►moo c 4 vti,, L.) iliac Q, Avt 4S 4 io4a,I 10 ; 1 wA.S ar ►nhe owkq s c.koo I SS+GV1. t.* t t 1, y E S h roacd S.-kCt 1 oti. w'evQ- r ct S o,._ kvtow , fkQ. Go p)e )%-t- PROJECT NAME G 0 I LOCATIONJam- - LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING Sc — PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Lw., cSce _`Air • _ REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATIONr—�— REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information _ and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying v with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any - authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. ,t74-1---- 1 C. R--.e �! �' �: ., '") . '..-,1 c //4/ ; Signature of Applicant 'bate Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION - APPLICANT: tiY s C,. c;k ✓ lS OWNER: ct_f pl i c a h,± - ADDRESS: C) f 1 v( , ADDRESS: /)LL55C'rl ,/7)» 3-S-3/7 TELEPHONE (Day time) 9_?/- �� ys-7 TELEPHONE: 4f717/"‘i'4% 7 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading./Excavation Permit 13. t7 Wetland Alteration Permit a 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review ✓ Notification Signs 150 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP / $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision 14100 TOTAL FEE $ ///o 0 c A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract Sharmin Al-Jaff April 10, 1995 Page 5 11. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The applicant shall submit a letter to the City documenting — that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. 12. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for the stormwater quality pond in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The grading plan shall be revised to include a storm drainage system which will convey runoff from the private street to the pretreatment pond. 13. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the utility improvements shall be required for _ review and formal approval by the City Council. Construction plans and specifications shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications & Detail Plates. ktm Attachment: Alternative Development Proposals — c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g.\eng\diene\planni ng\laci$.ppr Sharmin Al-Jaff April 10, 1995 — Page 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this subdivision proposal be denied on the basis of premature street access to the _ site. Staff has demonstrated that public street and utility improvements can be installed to service this development and the adjoining parcels. Should the Planning Commission and City Council approve the proposal as submitted, staff has outlined the appropriate recommendations and conditions below. _ 1. Utility construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over the sanitary sewer and water lines. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 2. Importing or exporting material from the site will require approval of a haul route. The haul route shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 3. Lot 4 shall utilize an internal ejector pump system to service the lower level of the dwellings, if necessary. The use of a forcemain shall be prohibited. 4. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Erosion control fence shall -- be installed at the edge of the construction limits and not within the wetland buffer zone. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the final plat conditions of approval. 6. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for extending municipal utilities to the north line of Lot 2 for future extension. Lots 2, 3 and 4 will be charged at time of building permit a hookup charge in the amount of$2,425 each lot. 8. The applicant shall receive the necessary access permit from the Carver County Highway Department for relocating the driveway access prior to the City signing the final plat. 9. Direct access to all lots shall be limited to the proposed private driveway. A cross-access easement agreement shall be prepared by the applicant to maintain access to Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 via the proposed private driveway. 10. The applicant shall design and construct a storm drainage system to convey runoff from the development and pretreat the storm runoff to SWMP standards to discharge into the wetlands in lieu of paying SWMP water quality fees. The applicant shall pay the City a SWMP water quantity fee in the amount of$2,811.60. This fee is payable prior to the City signing the final plat. Sharmin Al-Jaff April 10, 1995 — Page 3 UTILITIES Sanitary sewer service is available to the site from the west; however, sanitary sewer is not deep enough to service Lot 4 without an ejector pump in the lower level. According to the plans, the applicant is proposing the use of a 3-inch forcemain which is not desirable nor necessary in this situation. There are alternative measures to be employed such as an ejector pump from the lower level. Staff recommends that Lot 4 be required to make use of an ejector system for the lower level so that the main level and above will be on a gravity sewer system. This is much less of a maintenance item for the homeowner and, from a reliability standpoint, a superior alternative. Water service is available from Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to extend a 6-inch water service line down for water service to the new lots as well as fire protection. As denoted in the _ alternative development proposals,this site can also be served by public utilities and streets from the north through a public improvement project. If this application is approved, staff recommends that the sewer and water construction be in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities should be turned over to the City for ownership and maintenance. The applicant will need to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements. _ STREETS Back in September of 1991 in conjunction with Lundgren's WillowRidge subdivision which lies directly to the west of this site, access and utility service to this site were explored. Utilities were extended to the west line of this site in conjunction with WillowRidge's development proposal. Access into the Ravis parcel from WillowRidge was another matter, however. The Ravis parcel does have frontage along Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) which allowed other alternatives to provide access to the Ravis property rather than WillowRidge. Staff concluded at that time a cul-de-sac from WillowRidge was not feasible. A cul-de-sac from Lundgren's WillowRidge would have involved losing a lot of trees and by the time the cul-de-sac was extended through to the Ravis property, there was very little property left to be developed. Staff has recently explored some other alternative development possibilities on the Ravis property and adjoining parcels. Attached is a memo that was sent to the residents lying south of Lake Lucy Road and west of Powers Boulevard (Attachment 1). This memo explores five alternatives to subdividing the neighborhood. Staff met with the residents regarding the alternative development proposals back on March 9, 1995. At that meeting there was numerous discussions pertaining to private _ driveway access points along Powers Boulevard as well as all of the options listed within the memo. The general consensus was that no one alternative could be completely agreed upon by all affected parcels. Staff did propose Option E as a viable option in developing the neighborhood, including the Ravis parcel. This alternative also provided the most flexibility for the other adjacent parcels to subdivide as well. The private driveway proposal, as submitted,limits access to only the Ravis parcel and no future access to the adjoining parcels. Staff feels that this area can and should be developed under a different alternative which includes a public street. Therefore, at this time staff recommends that the subdivision as proposed be denied due to premature street access to development. If a private driveway was allowed to be constructed, the remaining parcels (Kohman and Infanger)will have limited subdivision potential, if any. Sharmin Al-Jaff April 10, 1995 — Page 2 load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since — there is no downstream water quality basin for this site these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding needed for the site. A credit for the one existing house/lot has been applied. The proposed SWMP quality charge has been calculated at $800/acre for single-family residential developments. This — proposed development of 2.14 acres (less the existing home site on Lot 1 = .72 acres) would then be responsible for a water quality connection charge of 1.42 acres which equates to $1,136.00. This fee will be waived if the applicant constructs an appropriate sediment basin to pretreat the stormwater runoff from the site. The site drains to the southwest into the ag/urban wetland. Since this wetland is shown to receive all stormwater discharge including hard surface areas, staff recommends that a sediment trap should be provided in accordance with the City's SWMP to pretreat the stormwater before it is discharged into the wetland. Staff recommends the applicant develop a storm water drainage plan to convey runoff from the driveways down to a stormwater treatment pond. Detailed storm drainage calculations will be required for review and approval by the City prior to final plat. Stone Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Since the SWMP does not propose any improvements on this site, the applicant should be required to pay the City the stormwater quantity charge. Single family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This proposed single-family residential development of 1.42 acres would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$2,811.60. — GRADING The grading and utility plan proposes to grade a private street from Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) — to service the proposed four lots. As a result of the grading most of the significant pine trees along the southerly property line will be lost. The existing driveway access point is proposed to be relocated to tie into the proposed private street from Powers Boulevard. The Carver County Highway Department will need to issue an access permit for the proposed private street. Between 6 to 8 feet of fill is needed to build up the house pads for Lots 3 and 4. Staff is wondering if there is additional material on site to be utilized for the development of these house pads or will material be imported to the site? If material is to be imported or exported, approved haul routes will need to be submitted to the City for review and approval. EROSION CONTROL All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Erosion control fence is proposed adjacent to the wetlands within the buffer zone. Staff recommends erosion control be placed at the construction limits and not encroaching upon the buffer zone. CITY OF - ,-.4. , 1 .\„....:.,:_, ., iii, CHANHASSEN _ ,... ,t, .,....r . _ y. . ..... 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 y ' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II - FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator-3)� David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 451,64 -- DATE: April 10, 1995 — SUBJ: Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis - File No. 95-4 LUR Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings dated September 29, 1994 and prepared by Engelhardt Associates, Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations: OEM WETLANDS The edge of a large ag-urban wetland touches the Ravis property and has been staked by a trained wetland delineator. A 0 to 20 foot wide buffer with an average 10 foot wide buffer will be maintained as required in the City's Wetland Ordinance. Staff requires a letter documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before building construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. DRAINAGE Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) The city has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)that serves as a tool to protect,preserve — and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design Il storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnct model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based — on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. NM Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. — Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus co 2/0 /6 4 �� d°#z 5 ���/ ; 6 (0 6 7Z __s uo © ,4? L- gfe-ge--72- 4/ £J4 - - - Ai/4. 071, zc, . u 3774��-- ?(z-CO l K 11/.. .1V 7D-7 Z - © /e4d1 6‘,So 490te,ez__ S /I�ie-- 455"-4- ‘11/144 7 vo rower-5 gL_ud , Gt}ENa•4.4_6_ 6 X 4✓L /1( 6L-20 ewe_ 7,47 C� A — . L _ o -to. . I . — if 1A P . 1' I 1 '\ s 2. I Z . V I N. _ 11:14________:....._:.• .. MURPHY .. 1.i1 _ _ 3- . 3 . (! .1 ¢ KERBER i______ GRAVLUM - . 'r h — Q 'y • � ,w1 • • -�. (1%, iti PETERSOt+ i ' :_•Zo: . ' _ • • - [b . 1 1. \-&..6.7.'..... .: t h ...."- ':.• ''',4i. — 4 1. i ;- •.'' , _741,..)\ it Z • 'Ii ' KO • NW..... ,.a9 �• I W;J • I 4 1. z Wit{ R,. v ♦, ,;f 1 - - y, : I i, ( 4(INFA , r ,D • "••••.1 0) cn A W N 1 H -1 -1r m = = � �. 3. ? o 0 o -I-I o 0 0 o fn o o C o m in m g co a a y• cQ •-i v Zv �� �� m� �� �� c Q r) is R co CD X)r O D X) r = m r mono D cil 9 n a �. m Z C (�D N Cl) — m co m 0)) Cn Z a S o m (n (i 0. O Q o y (A to c� o 3 0 T.`< a -1 (n 0o (D CA •,c t) 0 N O N `� O 0 Cv OO co = EA y'p 3 S Cl D O EA EA EA EA EA EA " EA 7 0 0 0 C) N N 0 A A N CD Nry, 13 C K CJ N N Q) A A N -CON O CD C — CD _BCD -• O " 0 C,.) 0 NJ 0 NJ CD- -i O (D O CD 0 0 D .< O 0 `G 7 CD = O Q O O. 00 D O Cl) O C:r Q 0 CDD0 II -, - . [UOEA EA CA EA 7� W W O W W O W W Q Q.� — o C) N 0 -CP Ul "co CJl U1f71 �• CC �� A A NJ A A N A (D t11X ,� - N " N CO 0 " N " N W CA --+ N N j c O 'O U) C p = a CD N �• Ci) D Bo .C• T� CS O tU m j' = co (a Q.• CD a C c�„ Na o a0 0 O Ui c�D -C O CSD cCD a (cD w EAO o. ^° 00 ZD N •I-n EA EA EA EA EA EA O cm -< m 6) -a 'n m a71 o OO0000000000NJ0 O XI O p X7 0 `� _ CD CD 00 -• 0 0 D m (n 7 C — EA EAO m (A N 0)) N N Off) NJ N fli CD co C N N V N N V N N '� Cr = Cl. D Q) 0) CO 0) C) CO 0) CA _G Z7 1 Q) " CO Co.) CO -, C) -� Q) W CO ." CO 0o 0— "'1 a) "^i C 0 Z CA o EA •EA EA EA EA EA - EA 0 3 a.0 _ -• -• Cn NJ N C�.) _. N•O co W W N -Cr) CP (D _o CD 0 1 i 0) C,.) G.) A A j .j • 7 5-1 7J O) •-,. CA .o. A NJ NJ N NJ W CO (D A 0) _ O Con O O CCD (n (D 0 EEA EA _A EA EA EA 3 Z Cl) (r 0) 0 -•` N EA CD CCD 0 V U1 N A A , c N N C) A "coA EA — N co -' CO " Ca) CW (D NJ O N 0) 0 0 U1 (!1 W -1 (n C C EA (CD ...► O 'CO EA EA W (�y + N N N N N cD O A' A � C.) W W V N CD l':3 A 00. CA CO CO V C) `G O Vs 0 -. V V C) CO N V F, CS a) CD 0 CO O (n o Cl) 71 7 CD 0 m Cr Q C (n R 1 W CD (D (J1 Ai I ' L 1- i zoil_ifie..7 "D. 1 Lite I 1 7 1 A 2- 11 z rt • MURPHY 3 \-... *-- I--t- -----77,---I----- \Ii\) 3 I KERBER `E GRAVLUM efk 8 i Ni S Ile CAUL f, Z l n 7i PETERSON 1 I D -';..1:. 1 5 Pi ( . ----- i- I It= - RAVIS J Z �I 1 KOHMANi IG I 17 r_.:,,.. --, ,± Bei rt R,. 1 I t • I 1 3 I IL{ j '15 INFANG R ' 1 Of rie K /( f . ___________________________ L,# L. G"`74 . • I I I I 11I I MURPHY I ....--) ,..,4 I I ' I • 1 KERBER IV I I I GRAVLUM I 1 r .1541 }yl�,4044 I H 4 ______,A - •—I 'E zT IZt. ,..\ I i I- I I 2i s, I CN f3 i I' - raC I OHMAN — /37,I l924. 1'lo I ^` � 1- I - I- . f I INcANGER - / 7� ISS.- _ 0,'7740A(JO — Harstad Companies April 5, 1995 Page 12 negotiated by the city contingent upon city council approval. Full park fee credit shall be granted as a part of these negotiations. Trail _ Acceptance of full trail dedication fees in force upon building permit application is recommended. Current trail fees are $300 per single family residential unit. COMPLIANCE TABLE Block 1 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (15,000 s.f. required) (90' required) (125' required) Lot 1 15,588 90 169 Lot 2 15,728 93 169 Lot 3 18,335 100 176 — Lot 4 18,272 110 155 Lot 5 18,769 90 193 — Lot 6 16,750 106 182 Lot 7 15,724 101 150 — Lot 8 15,003 100 150 Lot 9 15,003 100 150 Harstad Companies April 5, 1995 Page 13 — Block 2 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (15,000 s.f. required) (90' required) (125' required) Lot 1 15,605 90 171 Lot 2 15,057 90 162 Lot 3 15,590 100 151 Lot 4 16,991 114 150 _ Block 3 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth _ (15,000 s.f. required) (90' required) (125' required) Lot 1 15,001 100 150 Lot 2 15,001 100 150 Lot 3 15,001 100 150 — Lot 4 15,001 100 150 Lot 5 15,001 96 137 — Lot 6 17,304 100 137 Lot 7 25,631 106 220 — Lot 8 29,889 136 220 — Lot 9 19,069 136 140 Lot 10 15,023 106 140 — Lot 11 15,193 90 140 Lot 12 15,057 90 141 Lot 13 15,108 102 145 Lot 14 15,001 100 150 Lot 15 15,001 100 150 Lot 16 16,497 110 150 — Lot 17 18,302 107 150 Lot 18 15,062 100 150 — Lot 19 15,249 100 152 Lot 20 15,318 100 147 Lot 21 15,959 118 147 Harstad Companies April 5, 1995 Page 14 Lot 22 15,317 116 142 Lot 23 24,025 90 128 Lot 24 18,467 90 128 Lot 25 21,765 90 157 Lot 26 15,264 117 137 Lot 27 15,154 100 151 Lot 28 15,341 100 152 Lot 29 15,716 105 145 Lot 30 15,225 105 145 Lot 31 15,225 105 145 Lot 32 15,150 105 144 FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District lot dimension and area requirements. No variances are being requested. Staff is proposing access via a private drive for four lots off of White Oak Lane. The DNR supports the averaging of the lot sizes and frontages in the Shoreland District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. The proposed density of the development is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development. The conditions of the staff report should mitigate all vegetation, soil and storm water issues. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Harstad Companies April 5, 1995 _ Page 15 Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure — as part of the improvements required of the subdivision. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; — Finding: Staff is requesting the applicant provide a woodland management plan. This plan should preserve the integrity of the woodland canopy. — 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. — d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban — infrastructure and is located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) line. Kings Road will have to be built to city urban standards between Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road in order for this — subdivision to go forward. RECOMMENDATION +' Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat #93-11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 45 single family lots and two outlots as shown on the plans dated April 7, — 1995 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utilities and street within all public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. Maintenance access routes shall be provided to all storm water ponding. The routes are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site — grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate Harstad Companies April 5, 1995 Page 16 otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and — utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval. 4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR) and comply with their conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the — development contract. 6. Storm drainage discharge from the site shall maintain the predeveloped runoff conditions. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for a 10-year and 100-year storm event of a 24-hour duration. Water quality and — quantity ponding calculations shall be submitted in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve. 7. The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. 8. Lot 32, Block 3 shall take direct access from Country Oaks Lane and not Kings Road unless Kings Road has been upgraded to City standards. 9. A report or letter of clarification prepared by a qualified wetland delineator shall be submitted to the City documenting the location and integrity of all wetlands on the site. If there are wetlands on the site they shall be staked, surveyed and included on the grading and drainage plan. In addition, a buffer strip shall be incorporated by City ordinance. — 10. The proposed development shall be responsible for SWMP water quality and quantity connection fees of $22,040 and $54,549, respectively. SWMP water quality and quantity connection fees may be credited/reduced depending on the applicant's contribution to on-site storm drainage improvements according to the City's SWMP design parameters. 11. Storm drainage from the southwest portion of the site shall be evaluated for pre and post-development condition. The City shall determine, based on the amount of Harstad Companies April 5, 1995 Page 17 — impervious surface contributing to the wetlands located in the southwest portion of the site, whether or not a sediment basin will be required to pretreat runoff prior to — discharging runoff into the wetlands. 12. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City by warranty deed for construction of a — sediment basin and parkland. 13. Staff recommends granting a variance to the City's ordinance regarding street grades. — Street grades on Kings Road shall be permitted up to 10%. 14. The existing structures on the site shall be razed within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with the appropriate permits for demolition of all structures, wells and septic systems. — 15. Detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be required by the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits on Lots 4 — through 8, Block 3. 16. All private driveways shall be built in accordance to the City's Ordinance No. 209. 17. The lift station shall be designed to accommodate future development south of Kings Road (approximately 10 acres) and the City's telemetry system. The City will be — responsible for up to a maximum of 50% of the cost of the telemetry system. 18. The applicant shall include with the street construction a drain tile system behind the — curbs on all lots which do not directly abut a wetland or storm drainage pond. The drain tile system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards and detail plates. — 19. Erosion control fence adjacent to all wetland areas shall be the City's Type HI. Erosion control fence on the entire site shall be maintained by the applicant until the — entire site has been revegetated and removal is authorized by the City. 20. Barricades shall be placed at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac on White Oak Lane and a sign indicating that "THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 21. Park The plat shall include a 10± acre park at the northwest intersection of where Kings — Road currently is located and Minnewashta Parkway. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park dedication (1.72+ acres) and purchase (7.48± acres). — Harstad Companies April 5, 1995 Page 18 This acquisition shall be a condition of final plat approval. A purchase agreement shall be negotiated by the city contingent upon city council approval. Full park fee credit shall be granted as a part of these negotiations. Trail Acceptance of full trail dedication fees in force upon building permit application is recommended. Current trail fees are $300 per single family residential unit. 22. The applicant shall escrow with the city their fair share of the costs to extend Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road or a conveyance placed on the deed of Outlot B that these future lots will be responsible for 50% of the costs to upgrade Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road. 23. A woodland management plan shall be prepared as per city ordinance Section 18.61 (d). Prior to final plat approval, tree conservation easements shall be developed between staff and the applicant. 24. Within 3 years after final plat approval, Outlot B must be subdivided consistent with the approved plat. After that time, Outlot B will subject to city ordinances in effect. 25. All park land shall be designated as an outlot on the final plat. 26. Street names are subject to review and approval by Public Safety prior to final plat approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated April 11, 1995. 2. Letter from DNR dated February 1, 1995 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated February 6, 1995. 4. Letter from Lee Harvey dated March 2, 1995 5. Hearing notice 6. Park and Recreation minutes dated January 24, 1995. 7. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated January 9, 1995. 8. Preliminary plat dated April 7, 1995. y-,, CITYOF ,_ ,,, ,,„ 4 .'' CHANHASSEN _ ,„. ..., . 4 - ,„.''''- -':X 1 of 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer /Se — Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: April 11, 1995 ._ SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for The Oaks of Minnewashta File No. 94-2 LUR — WETLANDS — It appears that there may be a small wetland north of Kings Road on Lot 9, Block 1 and in the southwest corner of the site (Outlot B and Lot 25, Block 3). A wetland alteration permit or — confirmation of exemption from the wetland permit process is necessary. If there are wetlands on site, they should be staked, surveyed,and included on the grading and drainage plan with the buffer strip width as required by City Ordinance. In any case, a report or letter of clarification — is required from a qualified wetland delineator. Surface Water Management Plan — The City has prepared and adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) to serve as a tool — to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10- year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water — bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. — — Kate Aanenson The Oaks of Minnewashta April 11, 1995 — Page 2 — Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for water quality systems. The cash dedication — will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the applicant constructs the pond or $4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the City constructs the pond. Fees are reduced based on the costs of the _ developers contribution to the SWMP design parameters. The proposed SWMP quality charge has been calculated at $800/acre for single family residential developments. This proposed development of 27.55 acres would then be responsible for a water quality connection charge of — $22,040. Since the applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins in accordance with the City's SWMP, these fees will then be waived. Storm Water Quantity Fees — The SWMP has established an connection charge for different land uses based on an average, city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary — runoff storage. The connection charge is based on the type of land use for the area. Fees will be based on the total developable land. Undevelopable area(wetlands), public parks, and existing development is exempt from the fees. The fees are negotiable based on the developers — contribution to the SWMP design parameters. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This proposed single family residential development of 27.55 acres would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of — $54,549. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, pond oversizing, etc. Credits towards this fee will be — reviewed after the final construction plans have been approved by the City. DRAINAGE AREAS The site is divided into two drainage subdistricts with the westerly one quarter of the site draining west into wetlands located within the City of Victoria. These wetlands are part of the Lake St. Joe basin and drain into Lake St. Joe from the west. The storm drainage plan should also be analyzed by the applicant's engineer in order to meet the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The drainage areas have changed enough since the original set of plans that staff requires a new set of hydrologic calculations for the site. Kate Aanenson The Oaks of Minnewashta April 11, 1995 — Page 3 The pond in the park should be designed to pretreat approximately 16.5 acres of runoff according to the SWMP. If there is additional acreage to this pond due to a change in the watershed boundaries, the pond size should account for the additional runoff. Ponding must meet Walker's — Pondnet standards of approximately 65%total phosphorus removal before it is discharged off-site. The SWMP calls for a 12" pipe to be directed south under Kings road and continue on to Lake St. Joe where the treated stormwater can be discharged. If the adjacent property owners on the — south side of Kings Road (Morgan/Scott) are willing to grant the City a drainage and utility easement, the City will credit the applicant to install the storm sewer from Kings Road down to Lake St. Joe. If the City is not granted a drainage and utility easement, then the pond will have — to be enlarged to a water quantity pond and will be required to maintain pre-developed runoff rates off-site for a 100-year 24-hour storm. This means the runoff will continue to drain underneath Kings Road through the Morgan/Scott parcel to Lake St. Joe as it exists with predevelopment conditions. The runoff to the southwest portion of the site should be evaluated for pre-developed and post developed conditions. Additional runoff to this area especially from impervious surfaces may require a sediment pond prior to discharging into the wetland located just east of this site in — Victoria. Also, City ordinance requires that stormwater runoff from the site must be controlled at pre-developed runoff rates. There will be some stormwater discharge from the southeast corner of the site and Kings Road that will be conveyed via storm sewer through Outlot A south of Kings Road which is proposed to be dedicated to the City. A sediment pond is necessary to pretreat the runoff from the road — before it discharges into Lake St. Joe. The sediment trap should be designed to remove 35% phosphorus according to Walker's Pondnet model. GRADING The City half-section maps indicate and existing 33-foot wide right-of-way for Kings Road. — However, after further research by the city attorney's office, it appears the City has not been conveyed the necessary right-of-way as shown on the half-section maps. The city attorney's office has advised staff that in cases such as this, where the existing gravel road has been maintained — (i.e. snow plowing, grading, etc.) by the City for over six years, the City attains prescriptive rights to the public right-of-way for Kings Road which is generally defined to be limited to the travelled portion of the roadway along with the shoulder, drainage ditch, inslope and any land deemed to be a necessary appurtenance for the roadway. In this situation, Kings Road has been maintained by the City for over the six-year period. The width of Kings Road varies from 20 — feet to 23 feet, thus limiting the public right-of-way use to this area. The existing roadway is a substandard rural street meandering back and forth within the proposed right-of-way. At the west end of Kings Road the roadway is entirely outside the 33-foot "right-of-way". The City has Kate Aanenson The Oaks of Minnewashta April 11, 1995 Page 4 received a request from the applicant to perform a 429 public improvement project to construct Kings Road. The City considered the request and required that an escrow be supplied to the City to perform a feasibility study. However, the applicant did not provide the City with the escrow and thus, the petition was not acted upon. Staff has met again with the applicant to discuss the issues involved in performing a 429 project to upgrade Kings Road. A 429 public improvement project requires a feasibility study, public hearing and authorization by the City Council. The applicant, through negotiation with the City, is proposing to dedicate a 50-foot wide right-of-way which includes the existing Kings Road gravel surface to construct the new street. Staff has compromised on the City's standard 60-foot wide right-of-way as a part of negotiations. The preliminary grading plan proposes to grade the entire site. For the most part, the site is _ devoid of trees except in the northwest corner of the site. This area is proposed to be served by a private street and the lots (4-8, Block 3) custom graded at time of building permit. Due to the size of the parcel, it is anticipated that the applicant will proceed with several phases in order to _ complete the overall development. In conjunction with upgrading Kings Road the grading appears to be contained within the proposed right-of-way and not encroaching upon the properties south of Kings Road with the exception of Outlot A for a storm sewer and sediment trap. The proposed street grades along Kings Road exceeds the City's ordinance (0.50% to 7.0%). A variance would be required for the street grades. Staff is concerned with a proposed drainage swale on Lot 24, Block 3. Due to the contributing drainage, staff believes this area will be saturated most of the time. Staff recommends the grading be adjusted if possible to sheet drain across the rear yard into the wetlands. Staff will be reviewing this after the final drainage calculations are submitted. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the — applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post-developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-development and post-development conditions for 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre- - developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre- developed and post-developed conditions. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2%-inch rainfall, however, the rate of phosphorus retention will vary on the function and value of the wetlands downstream. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. UTILITIES Kate Aanenson The Oaks of Minnewashta April 11, 1995 — Page 5 There appears to be at least one existing structure (house) on the parcel located in the vicinity of the parkland. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with the necessary agency permits. A majority of the site is capable of being serviced by municipal — sanitary sewer and water by extending utilities from Minnewashta Parkway along Kings Road. A lift station is proposed to service the westerly portion of the development. The applicant should size the lift station to accommodate future development south of Kings Road — (approximately 10 acres). The lift station will also need to be fitted with a telemetry system as consistent with the other City lift stations and well houses. The City has agreed to share the cost of this telemetry system on a 50/50 basis with the applicant. The applicant has also requested — that the City compensate them for the oversizing of the lift station. The City does not have a funding mechanism to assist the applicant in the cost of constructing the lift station without doing — a public improvement project(§429 assessable project) which has been discussed previously with the applicant. If the applicant wishes to further pursue City cost participation of the lift station, they should formally petition the City. The City is currently scheduling developments and capital — improvement projects for 1996 and 1997. All petitions received by the City at this point will most likely be considered for a late 1996 or 1997 public improvement project. The westerly one- third of this development is dependant on the lift station to provide sanitary sewer service as _ proposed. Without the lift station, the westerly one-third of the development should be considered premature. The lift station design will be further reviewed during the construction plan and specification review process. — The plans are providing utility stubouts for the future extension to the adjacent parcels to the north and east. The plans also propose to install individual utility services to the existing homes — south of Kings Road. Contingent upon parkland acquisition, the City is proposing to contribute towards a portion of the utility and street costs along Kings Road. According to City ordinance, the parcel south of Kings Road must hook up to the new utilities within 12 months after the — utilities are operational if it is within 150 feet of the utilities. Upon review of the utility plan layout, it appears fire hydrants have been revised in accordance with the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. Staff has reviewed the alignment of the utility lines and recommends relocating the forcemain and sanitary sewer line proposed between Lots 25 and 26, Block 3 to the westerly edge of Lot 25, Block 3 and Outlot B and between Lots 24 — and 25, Block 3 to avoid future conflicts with the homes. In addition, this will result in the sanitary sewer line being much shallower. These types of revisions will be further addressed — during the construction plan and specification review process. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street and utility improvements will be — required for review by staff and City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval. The street and utility improvement shall be designated and constructed in accordance with the City latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be — Kate Aanenson The Oaks of Minnewashta April 11, 1995 Page 6 required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. As with other typical city developments, the moisture content in the soil is relatively high and the City has employed the use of draintile behind the curbs for improving both road sub-base drainage as well as providing a discharge point for household sump pumps. The applicant should be aware that the City will be requiring with the street and utility construction to include a draintile system for those lots which do not abut a wetland or storm pond. In addition, subdivision in the past have required up to a 2-foot granular subcut for the street section. The applicant should be advised that soil conditions may require some sort of modification to the typical street sections. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a minimum of _ 20 feet wide. The City will also require that all ponding areas be designed to provide access for maintenance equipment. The design shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. EROSION CONTROL The grading plan does provide minimal erosion control measures (Type I); however, adjacent to all wetland areas the erosion control fence should be Type III. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) may be required by the City behind the curbs during new home construction. STREETS Access to the development is proposed via Kings Road which is a narrow gravel roadway between 20 to 23 feet wide. Kings Road is proposed to be upgraded to urban street standards to adequately address traffic and ordinance requirements. The City's urban standards consist of a 31-foot wide back-to-back bituminous street section with concrete curb and gutter. According to the ordinance right-of-way shall be 60 feet wide which the plans propose. On Kings Road the applicant is proposing to dedicate 50 feet of the normally required right-of-way. The City has compromised on the right-of-way width as a part of negotiations. The applicant will be constructing Kings Road only up to Country Oaks Road. Outlot B will not be able to subdivide until Kings Road is upgraded to a full urban city street. The Outlot (B) may be subject to assessments for the cost of upgrading Kings Road in the future. A 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along the west side of Country Oaks Lane. Kate Aanenson The Oaks of Minnewashta April 11, 1995 — Page 7 The site will eventually be connected to the existing Country Oaks Road to the north once the Hallgren parcel develops. On the east side of this development there exists a combination of parcels(Headla/Wenzel)which could be further subdivided. Access to the Headla/Wenzel parcels has been considered at this time. The Headla parcel abuts Stratford Lane which is only constructed for approximately 250 feet west of Minnewashta Parkway. When Stratford Ridge was platted an Outlot B was created for future extension and deeded to the Stratford Ridge — Homeowners Association versus the City. Ms. Hallgren gains access to her property through/over this Outlot. Access to the Headla/Wenzel parcels is provided with the extension of White Oak Lane. A temporary cul-de-sac is proposed at the east end of White Oak Lane. Barricades shall be placed at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac and a sign indicating that "THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Staff will also place this condition within the development _ contract which is recorded against all of the parcels in the development. With the exception of Kings Road, street grades appear to be within the City's ordinance. On Kings Road the street was designed to be compatible with the existing topography which resulted in street grades between 0.49% to 10.00%. Staff recommends a variance to the City ordinance be approved. — Lot 32, Block 3 will have street access and utility service from Country Oak Lane. The home should be required to access Country Oak Lane as well. — RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utilities and street within all public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. Maintenance access routes shall be provided to all storm water ponding. The routes are — subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. — 2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood — fiber blanket. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest — edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval. — Kate Aanenson The Oaks of Minnewashta April 11, 1995 Page 8 4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR) and comply with their conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 6. Storm drainage discharge from the site shall maintain the predeveloped runoff conditions. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for a 10-year and 100-year storm event of a 24-hour duration. Water quality and quantity ponding calculations shall be submitted in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve. 7. The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. _ 8. Lot 32, Block 3 shall take direct access from Country Oaks Lane and not Kings Road unless Kings Road has been upgraded to City standards. 9. A report or letter of clarification prepared by a qualified wetland delineator shall be submitted to the City documenting the location and integrity of all wetlands on the site. If there are wetlands on the site they shall be staked, surveyed and included on the grading and drainage plan. In addition, a buffer strip shall be incorporated by City ordinance. 10. The proposed development shall be responsible for SWMP water quality and quantity connection fees of$22,040 and $54,549, respectively. SWMP water quality and quantity connection fees may be credited/reduced depending on the applicant's contribution to on- - site storm drainage improvements according to the City's SWMP design parameters. 11. Storm drainage from the southwest portion of the site shall be evaluated for pre and post- - development condition. The City shall determine, based on the amount of impervious surface contributing to the wetlands located in the southwest portion of the site, whether or not a sediment basin will be required to pretreat runoff prior to discharging runoff into the wetlands. 12. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City by warranty deed for construction of a sediment basin and parkland. Kate Aanenson The Oaks of Minnewashta April 11, 1995 — Page 9 13. Staff recommends granting a variance to the City's ordinance regarding street grades. Street grades on Kings Road shall be permitted up to 10%. 14. The existing structures on the site shall be razed within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with the appropriate permits for demolition of all structures, wells and septic systems. — 15. Detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be required by the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits on Lots 4 through — 8, Block 3. 16. All private driveways shall be built in accordance to the City's Ordinance No. 209. 17. The lift station shall be designed to accommodate future development south of Kings _ Road (approximately 10 acres) and the City's telemetry system. The City will be responsible for up to a maximum of 50% of the cost of the telemetry system. 18. The applicant shall include with the street construction a drain tile system behind the curbs on all lots which do not directly abut a wetland or storm drainage pond. The drain tile system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards and detail — plates. 19. Erosion control fence adjacent to all wetland areas shall be the City's Type III. Erosion — control fence on the entire site shall be maintained by the applicant until the entire site has been revegetated and removal is authorized by the City. 20. Barricades shall be placed at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac on White Oak Lane and a sign indicating that "THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g:\eng\projects\oaksm inn\harstad2.ppr _ . . CITY OF . 4- ., , , \ . CHANHASSEN' ':_='\ ., 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -` 2, (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4.(DW — DATE: February 6, 1995 SUBJECT: 93-11 SUB-file 2 (The Oaks of Minnewashta, Hardstad Companies) I was asked to review the proposed subdivision plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JAN 17 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the — above referenced project. Analysis: — Elevations. Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments. While this information is provide, because of the scale and complexity of the preliminary grading plan, many of the designations are unreadable. — Dwelling Type. The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the _ time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations. Soils Report. In addition, a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is — required for plan review purposes. House Pads. House pads shown on the grading plan scale to 35' by 60' . Building offsets, three car garages and three & four season porches typically cause house pads to extend beyond forty feet in width. A fifty foot wide pads will accommodate most dwellings and should be the minimum pad width. Corrected house pads must be oversized to properly distribute MEM Kate Aanenson February 6, 1995 Page 2 — building loads. Pad limits are shown next to the proposed dwellings in many cases. The limits of the corrected pads should be separated from the dwelling by one foot for every foot of depth of the dwelling — footings. Street Names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. — Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit . — Recommendations: — The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Enlarge the grading plan to make the lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations legible. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 2 . Revise the grading plan to show standard designations for dwellings. — This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3 . Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 4 . Revise grading plan to permit a fifty foot wide building pad with correct oversizing. 5. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. — 6. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo — 9:\safety\sak\memos\plan\hardstad.ka2 CITY OF .4r. CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN r UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official o\-_ DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might he helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. F"t.o or RIA Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with tie basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. Designates Split atty. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Petry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO . Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade — `-:at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. • f SE R �SEWO` WO F17-7".!p\ I -- — — — -- orRLO ' r — =Lr Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans arc compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. If S�«►• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER STATE OF A:[SKr gZ0 � _ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO _ February 1, 1995 Kathryn Aanenson, Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Harstad Companies, Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) and Lake St. Joe (10- 11P) , City of Chanhassen, Carver County (City 93-11 SUB - File 2) Dear Ms. Aanenson: We have reviewed the site plans (received January 20, 1995) for the above- referenced project (Sections 5 and 6, T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) and Lake St. Joe (10-11P) , Public Waters, are on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross-section of Public Waters, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. The OHW for Lake Minnewashta is 944.50' (NGVD, 1929) and the OHW for Lake St. Joe is 945.2 ' (NGVD, 1929) . It appears there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public _ Waters Permit jurisdiction. You should be aware that the project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on the project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. ._ 2. It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which is good. We would object to having the stormwater routed directly to Lake Minnewashta or Lake St. Joe. 3. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 4. The 100-year flood elevation of Lake Minnewashta is 945' (NGVD, 1929) . _ All the work that is done for this project must comply with applicable floodplain regulations of both the city and the Minneahaha Creek Watershed District. 5. Lake St. Joe has a shoreland classification of Natural Environment and Lake Minnewashta has a shoreland classification of Recreational Development. The entire project area is within the shoreland districts of these lakes. The development must be consistent with city's shoreland management regulations. In particular you should note: _ a. The project area contains steep slopes. Topographic alterations should be minimized in these areas. 1 '1.:7 VED o , - ,'V O G.:' Ha Sr;'y AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Kathryn Aanenson February 1, 1995 Page 2 b. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore impact zones. The minimum shore impact zone is an area within 37.5' of Lake Minnewashta or within 75' of Lake St. Joe. c. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Lake St. Joe and Lake Minnewashta using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. 6. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan Sullivan @ 296-7219) . d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, 7e Richter Hydrologist JR/cds c: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Kristen George U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann Chanhassen Shoreland File Lake St. Joe File (10-11P) ___ lir 4% i;eiZJ. ; • #iii/H;8)1) _ rip 441114 ( J li 1 M ii 1 , . .- i .k Aff/ _ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COUNTY S l,tZ. ' OAKS ROAD TRA ,-,P/NE it /� Al I N N PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING F. .. LANE e- — Wednesday, APRIL 5, 1995 . 7:00 P.M. a •" �` — City Hall Council Chambers o z K1. S -*AO , i\ 690 Coulter Drive o a \_- _ illllil!,.,\ Project: The Oaks at Minnewashta a- 1 Q ��I ' %,,\, J ,LAKE' - � � •� ,; >- _O > '57-JOE/ Developer: Harstad Companies Pok. i Zja liI� 0 (7) '1. alsr -. P.Location: North of Kings Road, - ` i C..:IT* ‘11 - , l ����- �����,� West of Minnewashta 4 ) EiL t�� �J Parkway — - 4ialivr - • 11 4J /A. MINNEWASHTA COURT Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Harstad Companies is proposing a revised preliminary plat of 35.83 acres of property into 45 single family lots and 2 outlots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single _ Family and located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. — 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The — Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please — stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900 ext. 118. If you — choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 22, 1995. --41110 / rARY & NADINE NELSON RALPH & P. KARCZEWSKI WARREN & JANET RIETZ 348 RED CEDAR COVE 7054 RED CEDAR COVE 7058 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID & A. PRILLAMAN COY & SANDRA SHELBY ROBERT & JUDY ROYER 364 RED CEDR COVE 7068 RED CEDAR COVE 7074 RED CEDAR COVE XCELSIOR MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 FOHN & SARAH MANEY BERNARD & ALYCE FULLER DONALD & B. BITI'bRMANN 7078 RED CEDAR COVE 7075 RED CEDAR COVE 7085 RED CEDAR COVE XCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 OUIS/LUANN GUTHMUELLER DEBRA HOFER PHILIP PITSCH 7095 RED CEDAR COVE 7098 RED CEDAR COVE 7099 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -ED CEDAR COVE TWNHOUSE KEVIN & CYNTHIS CUDDIHY ALLIN & SHIRLEY KARIS _.O. BOX 181 3900 STRATFORD RIDGE 3920 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 IVAN STREW JEFFREY & JANICE ADAMS W. SCOTT MORROW & 940 STRATFORD RIDGE 3960 STRATFORD RIDGE CYNTIA M. HOUSE ..;XCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3980 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 "BARTON WELLS CURRENT RESIDENT TERRY & BONNIE LAB ATT 4000 STRATFORD RIDGE 4001 STRATFORD RIDGE 3981 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 _:EITH & KATHRYN BEDFORD WILLIAM J. MUNIG CHARLES & C. CRUICKSHANK 3961 STRATFORD RIDGE 6850 STRATFORD RIDGE 3921 STRATFORD RIDGE 7XCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 )OUGLAS & JANET REICHERT CURRENT RESIDENT HAROLD & ELAINE TAYLOR - 901 STRATFORD RIDGE 3881 STRATFORD RIDGE 3861 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TKEVIN & SUELLYN TRITZ STRATFORD RIDGE HOA MARK & JULIE GRUBE 4851 STRATFORD RIDGE RD C/O KEITH F. BEDFORD 3931 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE "EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3961 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 & LOREN H. BEAUDOIN BRUCE & JENNIFER LINN 3941'CRAIGC & LINDANTRY MACKAKS DRIVE 133 SPRING VALLEY CIRCLE 4001 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LOREN L. BENSON & TODD & FRANCIS BOYCE JEROME M. BACH LEE & JUANITA HARVEY 4011 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE C/O NORWEST BANK, TRUSTEE 7120 KINGS ROAD _ EXCELSIOR MN 55331 6TH MARQUETTE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55479-0046 BARBARA B. WILSON JEFFRY H. HALLGREN & JENNIFER J. HALLGREN 7050 KINGS ROAD MICHELLE GEORGE 375 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 355 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KRISTIN & JERRY KORTGARD LINDA A SCOTT & LOWELL & J. CARLSON 3901 GLENDALE DRIVE SUSAN E. MORGAN R. 1 BOX 822A EXCELSIOR MN 55_331 4031 KINGS ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID & MARbARE,'�'BORRIS JOHN P. BAUMTROG STATE OF MINNESOTA GS 4071 KINROAD. 7141 MINNEWASHTA PKWY DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION EXCELSIOR MN 5331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 METRO SQUARE BUILDING ST. PAUL MN 55101 _ DARYL & DEBRA KIRT MARK & DONNA MALINOWSKI JAMES & ARLENE CONNOR 50 HILL STREET 7250 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 3901 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD - CHANHASSEN MND 55317' EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HOLY CROSS LUTHERAN LEE ANDERSON JOANN HALLGREN CHURCH OF MINNESOTA PLEASANT ACRES HOA 6860 MINNEWASHTA PKWY. 4151 HIGHWAY 7 RT. 1 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES & R. BOYLAN JAMES & JEFFREY KERTSON KENNETH & DUANE E. LUND 6760 MINNEWASHTA PKWY. 6810 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 395 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RLK ASSOCIATES ROBERT MOREHOUSE DAVID HEADLA 922 MAIN STREET 4410 HIGHWAY 25 6870 MINNEWASHTA PKWY HOPKINS MN 55343 WATERTOWN MN 55388 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 TERRY FORBORD LARRY WENZEL LUNDGREN BROS. 6900 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD. EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 WAYZATA, MN 55391 — 19T- 7120 Kings Rd. C!T`t ar +d;,r,trig SEI`s Excelsior,MN 55331 March 25,1995 Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen,MN 55317 Regarding: The Oaks Development by Harstad Companies Dear Members: My wife and I live at the dead end of Kings Road, in the city of Victoria Our only access to the external world is via Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway which lie entirely within Chanhassen Our access has been adversely affected during the Minnewashta Parkway renovation, and the more recent development project at the north end of Minnewashta Parkway. Unlike the obstructionist opinions expressed by many of our neighbors,we have no objections to the plans for the orderly residential development in this area, and defer that judgment entirely to the cognizant municipal authorities. There is,however, one suggestion that we would like to have you consider, regarding our egress and access during the construction period: The prime contractor of such projects are usually contentious in not blocking public accesses, because of their continuing vulnerability to officialdom during construction. This attitude does not extend to the many subcontractors who intermittently deliver supplies and/or services. The prime contractor has no financial or legal responsibility for the criminal trespass or ordinance violations of his subs. They have wreaked their havoc and are gone before any appropriate action can be initiated. Our suggestion is to make it the prime contractors responsibility, during construction,to continuously provide suitable all weather parking for him and his subcontractors on his own private property, and to require his posting of a bond which is partially forfeited if he or any subcontractors commit criminal actions such as blocking public access,trespass, or property damage. This is a pro-active way to prevent the actions which were so pervasive and created such a burden during previous construction projects in the area While the developer could argue that this puts an unreasonable financial burden on him, this is more fair than shifting the inevitable financial burdens to the people in the local community that will otherwise be affected by the project. Sincerely, Lee E. Harvey Park and Rec Commission - January 24, 1995 Andrews: What we've done in the past is,just when a conflict comes up, call Todd and we'll get it worked out. — Huffman: I won't be there for the January 23rd meeting. Well, how about if I just let you know tonight that I won't be there last night. — LAND SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 37+ ACRES OF — PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY INTO 43 TO 53 LOTS LOCATED NORTH OF KING ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, HARSTAD COMPANIES. — Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Andrews: Mr. Birch, if you'd like to come address the commission. John Birch: My name is John Birch. It gets pronounced a number of ways because it's got the h on the end. First of all I have to say that I'm from...and Associates. We are the company that has done preliminary plat. This is per Mr. Harstad's wants and wishes. _ Apparently he has done some marketing strategies and found out that the perceived park area that the city wants is some of the highest valued land because of the close proximity to the lake and they decided that that's what they would prefer to do is build single family — residences in here and if the city would want more park, the idea would be to cut these lots off in this area here. Taking just 4 single family lots and then the 10 acres of park which would be back in this area. That's what Mr. Harstad has asked me to convey to you. He — never showed up with his plan. Apparently he has talked to someone about it. I don't know if it was Todd or whoever it was at the city but he felt that the 10 acres of park in that area would be more equitable for him because of the costs involved in building streets that he — would incur. In essence what would happen is, in this plan when the park is here, he would have to incur a lot of cost to build a road to this point in here with zero value. In other words, he gets no value back on it. All his costs are involved and he would have to offset all of this road cost with the exception of what the city picks up, with the rest of the lots, it becomes a real high premium on those lots. Andrews: Do you know what it costs per foot to build a roadway like that? John Birch: I can give you a rough idea. It's right around $250.00 a running foot. '— Andrews: And how many feet are we looking at along the proposed park along the lake? 12 — — Park and Rec Commission - January 24, 1995 John Birch: I'd have to guess. I don't remember exactly what that was. I think, it's probably about 1,800 to 2,000 feet I believe. Andrews: So that works out to be about, does anybody have a calculator with them here. — Hoffman: $800.00 to $1,000.00. John Birch: So you have to get to this point over here which is zero value. So it's going to be pretty close to $1,000.00. But the streets, curb and gutter, storm sewers, sanitary sewer, the approximately cost that we use just for a rough estimate...is right around $250.00 a running foot. • Andrews: And does the property owner adjacent pick up part of that cost? John Birch: No. That's part of the problem. Kings Road has platted. What happens is...that all of the land that Kings Road is on this property. None of it is on this property. So not only does he build this or have to build this road but he's got no recourse to get money back — from these people who now have a nice road against their property and can develop their properties. Andrews: I would have to assume that there's more linear feet in a curved roadway than a straight roadway. John Birch: In this instance here? Is that what you're saying? — Andrews: Yes. John Birch: Yes there is. But with this type of alignment, what happens is, now he can — offset the cost of these higher value lots. He provides the roadway, gets the lots in here. If he builds this road with the park system here, he's got no way to offset the cost of that roadway at all. And it does get very expensive. Because that's an upfront cost. He also has — to provide the bond of 150% of the total cost. And all of that becomes quite a burden. Lash: Can someone refresh my memory as to why we decided on that specific location on — this parcel. I know there had been discussion of locating it in other areas and I can't recall right off. Andrews: Access was the main. 13 Park and Rec Commission - January 24, 1995 Lash: Okay, that's what I was thinking. Because of the park deficient nature of that area we wanted it to be more accessible to the parkway? Andrews: And we wanted it to be on the trail system too. I guess one of my frustrations _ here, some of the reasons I was asking the cost questions is, I count up approximately 8, maybe 10 lots that are affected by the change in plat. I have nothing to base my guesses on here other than to say that if those lots are worth $10,000.00 more a piece because they're _ closer to the lake, you know that's $80,000.00 potentially for the property, or for the developer here to perhaps increase his sale. But at the same time he's got to build some additional roadway and now he's sat on that property for another 6 months. He's hired more _ architects. More planners. More engineers. More attorneys to look at the property. It's very frustrating for me as a part of our Park Board that this is an area, as a Park Board, we've been looking for a quality piece of property for a number of years with very few opportunities. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the Harstad property came along. Depending on who's side of the fence you're on I think here. But we look at the location here as being one of, there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it from our standpoint and I guess my opinion is to _ locate the property in a distant corner of the parcel makes it inaccessible and not meeting our needs and that's why, in both cases when this project came before us, we were quite strong in our recommendation that that's why we wanted it located where it was. And when it left here last year I think, young Mr. Harstad, I think it was. John Birch: Paul. _ Andrews: Paul Harstad. There's no way that he misunderstood our intentions on that night because he came in here and he was I think a little shocked at the reception that he received because I think he figured we were going to go along with what he thought was a plat similar to this and there was no way. So I guess I'm going to have to speak personally that I'm disappointed to see this back again. I understand what you're talking about as far as the costs here. I mean there is a trade off here and I would think through the, there is a fairness issue here that I think is dealt with through prior court cases I would imagine. If a property owner is deprived of his, or injured by action of another, he has a right to recover that injury through fair treatment or through the legal recourse. So I guess I would argue that ultimately in the ideal world this should work out to be fair, and I'm hoping that it will. For that reason I'm going to recommend that we follow the recommendation. That's my personal opinion so. John Birch: The only thing I would say is, first of all he's got 12 lots, not 8 lots that he can...from. Again, if there was a way to realign the road to get down, or when the costs were to be, we've looked at it a couple three different ways. Our company's, I haven't personally _ looked at it over the period of time. I've only been working on it for about the last 3 to 4 14 Park and Rec Commission - January 24, 1995 months but we've got a number of sketches in our office trying to come up with a reasonable solution and because of the way the King's Road was originally aligned, it went down on this property owner's property. All of it. None of it was split on the line the way it normally is and so it does, it throws all the burden onto this property. Hoffman: That piece of information is new information to me. I've had a number of conversations with our engineers and our planners over some possibilities with the funding of that roadway. It was certainly represented, due to past experience to the property owners on the south side of Kings Road that it would be difficult, it may be difficult to convince the City Council to assess those people but they still benefit from it so, it's...to assume that they could be assessed on the south side of Kings Road as well. So this is a new piece of information presented...investigate on behalf of the commission. Andrews: I agree with what you're saying Todd but yet I don't feel that's within our area of concern. I mean we'd like to see it fairly divided, because it should be. It should be ideally but. Hoffman: You're correct. That will be for the City Council. Andrews: That's for them to decide. And I think we have to look at the pure issue which is where should a park be. How does it best serve our city. Yes, it may create an adverse impact. I would have to admit you're not the first representative of a developer here that's come in here and said I'd like you to build your park somewhere else. I would say that happens virtually every time. For some reason, I don't know if it's coincidence but usually they prefer to have the park on the least valuable property. Usually on the most isolated corner, on the lowest quality land and I think I've figured out why. But in this situation we feel that as a Park Board, and you were here for part of our study here earlier of our parkland, that we have a very scarce resource to work with here that we need to protect. I mean 20-30 years from now I don't want to have to look at kids or grandkids and say geez, you know. There almost was a nice park here. But we decided it really wasn't that big of a deal and we decided we'd build it back in the woods there but, you know we could go back there but it's kind of hard to find it or it doesn't really hook up to anything quite the right way. I can't do that. Lash: You can walk to it but you can walk an extra mile. Andrews: Yeah. You can walk to it but once you're there, you can't see the lake anymore. — You know the neighbors wish they had something closer to the lake but geez, you know the developer wanted to put houses there. Boy that's just, to me this is an issue, there's a right way and a wrong way and in spite of the fact that this is going to result in less dollars for the 15 Park and Rec Commission - January 24, 1995 developer in his pocket, as we've discussed many times here, the developer isn't going to live in the development. Most likely. And he'll be on his way to some other city to put in a — development using the same arguments again and we're left with a property that wasn't done the best way it could have been done. So that's a personal opinion. Berg: I couldn't say it as well as you but the issues for me are, we are so incredibly deficient in that area and the access of the spot we've already decided upon. Or that we recommended and I strongly support your point of view. — Roeser: So do I. I agree. I think that's the best spot for that park. Huffman: Do you want to make a motion? Roeser: I have no reason to change my mind and move it back up into there. I can think of — no reason why we would want to do that. John Birch: Are there any other questions I can answer? Thank you. — Andrews: We need to make a, or are we staying on our prior motion or do we need to make one here? Hoffman: It's a new application. Andrews: A new application would require a motion then. Huffman: I'd like to move that, the correct verbiage being that we're under the new user friendly rules, do I have to read the entire park and trail again? Do I have to read the whole thing? I'd like to reference that, make a motion that for the park, the plat should include a 10 — acre park at the northwest intersection of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park dedication and purchase of 1.72+ acres and purchase of 7.4 acres. This acquisition shall be conditioned of final plat approval. — A purchase agreement shall be negotiated by the City contingent upon City Council approval. Full park fee credit shall be granted as part of these negotiations and acceptance of full trail dedication fees in force upon building permit application is recommended. Current trail fees are $300.00 per single family residential unit. Andrews: I've got one clarification I'd like to add if I could. And that would be to the — reference to the northwest corner of Kings Road be where the road currently lies. Not as where it's shown on this plat. 16 — — Park and Rec Commission - January 24, 1995 Meger: Second. — Andrews: Any further discussion? Huffman moved, Meger seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend — approval of the Oaks at Minnewashta with the following conditions of approval in regard to parks and trails: — Pa& The plat shall include a 10+ acre park at the northwest intersection of where Kings Road currently is located and Minnewashta Parkway. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park dedication (1.72+ acres) and purchase (7.48+ acres). This _ acquisition shall be a condition of final plat approval. A purchase agreement shall be negotiated by the city contingent upon City Council approval. Full park fee credit shall be granted as a part of these negotiations. Trail Acceptance of full trail dedication fees in force upon building permit application is recommended. Current trail fees are $300.00 per single family residential unit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISTRICT 112 COMMUNITY EDUCATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Hoffman: This is an issue that just won't go away. I'll let you take it from there. Huffman: No. — Lash: You were our second choice. Actually you were our first choice but you weren't here so we didn't nominate you. — Huffman: Bless you. Andrews: Well, are there are any volunteers here? Can we volunteer paid staff people? Are — we allowed to do that? Berg: What happens if we don't have somebody? 17 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 'f- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission — FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director O/7 DATE: January 19, 1995 SUBJ: The Oaks at Minnewashta, Preliminary Plat, Harstad Companies — Exactly one year ago the commission reviewed a preliminary plat of Harstad Companies for this same site. The staff report reviewing that application dated January 25, 1994 is attached. On the evening of Tuesday, January 25, 1994, the commission took public comment on this proposal, heard from the applicant and made the following recommendation to the city — council: Roeser moved, Manders seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat as presented with the inclusion of acquisition of the 10± acre park depicted in Park Plan A including the — lakeshore property. The acquisition of the park is to be accomplished through park dedication of 1.72+ acres and purchase of 7.48± acres. This acquisition shall be a condition of final plat approval. A purchase agreement shall be negotiated by the city — attorney contingent upon City Council approval, full park fee credit ($38,700) on 43 homes is to be granted as a part of these negotiations. Acceptance of full trail dedication fees in force upon building permit application is recommended. Current — trail fees are $300 per single family residential unit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. In the interest of fulfilling this recommendation, a series of meetings between the City of Chanhassen and Harstad Companies were held throughout 1994. The acquisition of the park, among other issues, were discussed at these meetings. Specific to the park acquisition, the — following information was forwarded to Harstad Companies. Generally, the transaction would entail the following elements: 1. The city would accept the dedication of parkland from Harstad Companies. This dedication would equal their required dedication per city ordinance. The land area The Oaks at Minnewashta January 19, 1995 Page 2 requested would commence at the property's eastern border (Lake Minnewashta) and extend to the west. This dedication would entail approximately 1.75 acres. 2. The remainder of the park would be purchased from Harstad Companies. 3. In assuming ownership of the park, the city would accept the responsibility for its portion of public improvements. These improvements generally include street and curb construction and utility costs (sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer). More specifically, the city would pay for its half of the street and associated curb, a water and sewer unit (to accommodate any future hookup) and stormwater costs. Unfortunately, Harstad Companies has informed the city that they misunderstood the city's position. Believing that the city would pay the full cost of public improvements for both sides of the street along the park's frontage. As I informed Harstad Companies, such an arrangement has, to my recollection, never been consummated by the city. It would not be in the best interests of the public to do so. Harstad Companies' options are to ask the City Council to authorize construction of the road and assess the abutting properties, or in the interest of their proposed development, assume the costs of that portion of Kings Road. Harstad Companies has informed us that they do not accept the premise on which the city's proposal is based and have chosen to submit a second preliminary plat. This proposed plat again does not incorporate the recommendations of the Park and Recreation Commission. You will note that this submittal, dated January 13, 1995, includes 49 lots, proposes a partial vacation of Kings Road, and includes 2.6 acres of parkland split between two locations, one on the western edge of the plat adjacent to the City of Victoria and the other, labeled as Outlot "A" Park, adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. I have informed Mr. Paul Harstad of my disapproval of this plan based on its lack of compliance with the desires communicated by the Park and Recreation Commission. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend approval of The Oaks at Minnewashta with the following conditions of approval in regard to parks and trails: Park The plat shall include a 10+ acre park at the northwest intersection of/Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park dedication (1.72± acres) and purchase (7.48+ acres). This acquisition shall be a condition of final plat approval. A purchase agreement shall be negotiated by the city contingent upon city council approval. Full park fee credit shall be granted as a part of these negotiations. Trail Acceptance of full trail dedication fees in force upon building permit application is recommended. Current trail fees are $300 per single family residential unit. 7 BYLAWS PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CHANHASSEN The following bylaws are adopted by the City Planning Commission to facilitate the performance of its duties and the exercising of its functions as a commission established by the City Council pursuant — to the provision of Subdivision 1, Section 462.354 Minnesota State Statutes annotated. SECTION 1 - DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES - PLANNING COMMISSION: 1.1 The Planning Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the City Council through carrying out reviews of planning matters. All final decisions are to be made by the City Council. 1.2 The Planning Commission shall prepare a Comprehensive Plan for the future development of the city and recommend on amendments to the plan as they arise. 1.3 The Planning Commission shall initiate, direct, and review the provisions and standards of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations and reports its recommendations to the City Council. — 1.4 The Planning Commission shall review applications and proposals for zoning ordinance amendments, — subdivisions, street vacations, conditional use permits and site plan reviews and make their recommendations to the City Council in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. 1.5 The Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on development proposals as prescribed by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. 1.6 - Establishment of Subcommittees The Planning Commission may, as they deem appropriate, establish special subcommittees comprised solely of their own members. SECTION 2 - MEETINGS: 2.1 - Time Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held on the first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 690 Coulter Drive, unless otherwise directed by the Chairperson, in which case at least 24 hours notice will be given to all members. Regular meetings shall have a curfew of 10:30 p.m. which may be waived at the discretion of the Chairperson. All unfinished business will be carried over to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, there shall be no Planning Commission meeting. 2.2 - Special meetings Special meetings shall be held upon call by the Chairperson, or in his/her absence, by the Vice- _ Chairperson or any other member with the concurrence of four other members of the commission, and with at least 48 hours of notice to all members. Notice of all special meetings shall also be posted on the official city bulletin board. 2.3 - Attendance: Planning Commission members shall attend not less than seventy-five (75%) percent of all regular and special meetings held during a given (calendar) year, and shall not be absent from three (3) consecutive meetings without prior approval of the Chairperson. Failure to meet this minimum attendance requirements shall be cause for removal from the commission by action of the City Council. SECTION 3 - COMMISSION COMPOSITION, TERMS AND VACANCIES: 3.1 - Composition The commission shall consist of seven (7) voting members. Seven members shall be appointed by the Council and may be removed by the Council. 3.2 - Terms and Vacancies The council shall appoint seven members to the commission for terms of three (3) years. Vacancies _ during the term shall be filled by the council for the unexpired portion of the term. Every appointed member shall, before entering upon the charge of his/her duties, take an oath that he/she will faithfully discharge the duties of his office. All members shall serve without compensation. _ 3.3 - Quorum Four planning commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Whenever a quorum is not present, no final or official action shall be taken at such meeting. SECTION 4 - ORGANIZATION: 4.1 - Election of Officers At the first meeting in April of each year, the planning commission shall hold an organization meeting. At this meeting, the commission shall elect from its membership a Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson. This shall be done by secret ballot. Each member shall cast its ballot for the member he 2 wishes to be chosen for Chairperson. If no one receives a majority, balloting shall continue until one member receives the majority support. Vice-Chairperson shall be elected from the remaining numbers of the same proceeding. 4.2 - Duties of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson The Chairperson or in his/her absence, the Vice-Chairperson, shall preside at meetings, appoint committees from its own membership, and perform other such duties as ordered by the commission. The Chairperson shall conduct the meeting so as to keep it moving rapidly and efficiently as possible and shall remind members, witnesses and petitioners to preserve order and decorum and to keep comments to the subject at hand. The Chairperson shall not move for action but may second motions. SECTION 5 - PROCEDURE: 5.1 - Parliamentary Procedure _ Parliamentary Procedure governed by Roberts Rules of Order Revised, shall be followed at all regular meetings. At special work session meetings, and when appropriate, the commission may hold group discussions not following any set parliamentary procedures except when motions are before the commission. SECTION 6 - PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6.1 - Purpose of Hearings The purpose of a hearing is to collect information and facts in order for the commission to develop a rational planning recommendation for the City Council. 6.2 - Hearing Procedure At hearings, the following procedure shall be followed in each case: a. The Chairperson shall state the case to be heard. b. The Chairperson shall call upon the staff to present the staff report. Required reports from each city department shall be submitted to the Planning Commission before each case is heard. c. The Chairperson shall ask the applicant to present his case. d. Interested persons may address the commission, giving information regarding the particular proposal. e. Petitioners and the public are to address the Chairperson only, not staff or other commissioners. 3 f. There shall be no dialogue among the commissioners giving information regarding the particular proposal. (The Planning Commission members may ask questions of persons addressing the commission — in order to clarify a fact, but any statement by a member of any other purpose than to question may be ruled out of order.) g. After all new facts and information have been brought forth, the hearing shall be closed and interested persons shall not be heard again. Upon completion of the hearing on each case, the Planning Commission shall discuss the item at hand and render a decision. The Planning — Commission, if it so desires, may leave the public record open for written comments for a specified period of time. h. The Chairperson shall have the responsibility to inform all the parties of their rights of appeal on any decision or recommendation of the Planning Commission. 6. 3 - Schedule At meetings where more than one hearing is scheduled, every effort shall be made to begin each case — at the time set in the agenda, but in no case may an item be called for hearing prior to the advertised time listed on the agenda. SECTION 7 - MISCELLANEOUS: 7.1 - Planning Commission Discussion Matters for discussion which do not appear on the agenda may be considered and discussed by the commission only when initiated and presented by the staff and shall be placed at the end of the agenda. — 7.2 - Suspension of Rules The commission may suspend any of these rules by a unanimous vote of the members present. 7.3 - Amendments — Amendment of these bylaws may be made at any regular or special meeting of the Planning Commission but only if scheduled on the meeting agenda in advance of the meeting. — 7.4 - Review At the first meeting in April of each year, these bylaws shall be read and adopted by the Planning Commission. Adopted: Date: 4 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 5, 1995 Vice Chairman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Nutting, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Mike Meyer, and Bob Skubic MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer _ Vice Chairman Mancino gave an introduction as to who the Planning Commission is and how the meeting would be conducted. ADOPTION OF BY-LAWS AND ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to move this item until after the public hearings. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 1.14 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED, RSF, AND LOCATED NORTH OF MELODY HILL AND NORTH OF THE MINNETONKA MIDDLE SCHOOL, 2220 MELODY HILL ROAD, GOLMEN HOFF GOLMEN ADDITION. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Staff was not recommending that we make the decision tonight whether to continue that road through. Just to acquire the right-of-way at this point. Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Thank you, and would you please state your name. Joe Zwak: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Joe Zwak. I'm representing the applicants here. We have another point that we would like to have the staff consider as a part of their recommendation offered before the Council. I'd like to address those. Basically we're not too clear on the one recommendation to acquire 25 feet from the applicant to expand the right-of-way of Melody Hill. I'm not clear whether that 25 feet is 25 feet of their property or that includes the existing 16 feet that I believe is dedicated as a part 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 of the original plat of that property. In any event, we think that the taking of the land, whether it be the larger parcel, the 25 foot width and just an additional 9 feet to add on to the — 16 feet on the south end of the property. It seems to me that number one, they're paying out over $12,000.00 in fees for a very simple subdivision and the city is now looking at taking some of their land for purposes of expanding the roadway again without compensation and — that's not that unusual. It happens all the time but I think in this circumstance, if you have the plat map before you, you'll notice that the dedicated Melody Hill as it presently exists, there is a, I guess it doesn't show up very well on that but there is a jog. To the west of their — property, the platted Melody Hill is actually 50 feet wide and then it narrows down in the southwest corner of their property to 30 feet. And it seems to me that if you take an additional 9 feet or 25 feet on the north side of that road, when you ultimately create the road — you're going to end up having a jog in the road in front of their house and it doesn't seem a logical way to develop a street. The land to the south of there, I don't know if that's owned by the school board or whether it's a city park or whatever, but it seems that it'd be more — logical to utilize the additional 25 feet on the south side of the presently dedicated Melody Hill for purposes of connecting it to whatever development occurs to the east of this site in — the future. So I'd like to have the staff consider that when they look at this. That that alternative be given consideration in redoing this. Secondly, in that same vein...there presently exists a cul-de-sac on Melody Hill and I would like to have you also consider that if _ this plat is approved, that that portion of the cul-de-sac from Melody Hill, which is north of the north line of Melody Hill Road, that that would be vacated to eliminate that half circle in there. The third point is relative to the removal of the garage. I know that they're — recommending that the garage be relocated to the north and west of the house and utilize a common driveway, and the applicant is proposing to put the garage on the east side of the house. There was a concern in putting the garage on the east side of the house on the basis — that it may damage an existing, very large tree in there and so I think what could be considered here is that there is a dedicated right-of-way and at some point in time that right- of-way is going to be developed. And it would be easy enough to put a temporary drive — along the existing right-of-way and then put a permanent driveway in at the point in time that Melody Hill is extended to the east. It seems to me that that would minimize ground cover much more so than trying to do a common driveway between the two properties. So I'd like — to have that point considered. Mancino: And when you do that, do you avoid the tree? Take down the tree. — Joe Zwak: You avoid removing the tree, because ultimately the driveway, if the garage is on the east side of the house, the driveway would be directly off of, it would be in a north/south — direction right off of Melody Hill Road so we would avoid the problem with the tree. The fourth point with regard to the removal of the garage right away and the posting of a bond on it. I think we do end up with a non-conforming use on an interim basis here from the point — 2 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 of view that you have a house on one platted lot and the accessory structure on another platted lot so I think at least for the very near future, the two lots are either going to be — utilized as one common living unit using both the house and the garage as that one common living unit. I think it would be more appropriate for the removal, for the moving of the garage would be tied into the issuing of the building permit for the new house. And I don't — know exactly what their timing is on it but I think roughly they're looking at the possibility of maybe in June getting started on this project so the 30 day limit here might be too narrow. Maybe it's enough, I don't know but I think if we tie the removal of the garage to the — issuance of the building permit, that would seem to be more appropriate than requiring removal within a 30 day period. The next point is, there's a provision here relative to creating additional ground cover in terms of trees. I think the plan or the plat that has been — prepared by the surveyor only sets forth trees that are 6 inches or greater in diameter and the applicants have, over the last few years, been planting 3 plus trees per year so there are a number of trees on the property that are I believe greater than 2 1/2 inches in diameter. Certainly less than the 6 inches and I would like to have the staff look at those trees in the point of view of 1(a). ...set their requirements as to what exactly what additional trees would — have to be planted on the property. That is our statement and if you've got any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. _ Mancino: Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Zwak? Thank you. Sharmin, can you give us some guidance as far as the 16 feet for the roadway? Is the 25 feet, does that include the 16 feet? Or maybe Mr. Hempel could. Hempel: Sure, I can address that one for the commission. Currently the underlying plat, they've already dedicated a total right-of-way of 32 feet. The center line...is the southerly property line of proposed Lot 2. Now what we are requesting is an additional 9 feet of right- of-way to create one-half of the 50 foot wide right-of-way, which is typical for that area. So we're looking at the southerly 25 feet of Lot 2 as it's platted... Mancino: So the southerly 25. And do you split this with the property on the south side? Is that how you come up with the amount of right-of-way? Hempel: Right. Currently there's 16 feet lying south of this property...acquired from the school when the street is being extended through. Mancino: And what about the staff, what about the northern part of the cul-de-sac? What happens to that part? Hempel: At this time we would not recommend vacating that turn around until the street was put going through...turn arounds for public safety vehicles and snowplowing purposes and so 3 Planning Commission Meeting -April 5, 1995 forth. So at the time the road does get extended through past the property to the east, we would be in favor of vacating the cul-de-sac. If I could touch on another point the applicant — made in regards to relocation of the garage. That was an alternative staff looked at and possibly setting a temporary driveway east of the cul-de-sac and then having the driveway extended north to service...garage. That would be acceptable as well. — Mancino: And what about timing? For vacating the garage. Flexibility from staff. Hempel: In relocating the garage? I guess I'll... Al-Jaffa What we can do is hold off on recording the plat until the garage has been removed. — This way we're not creating a non-conforming situation. Aanenson: We'll have to look at, there may be some financial considerations if they're trying — to get financing or whatever but we'll certainly work with... — Mancino: The applicants, thank you. May I have a motion please to open the public hearing? Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak on this item? Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Discussion from the different commissioners. Ladd, do you have a few thoughts on this? Conrad: No. I think Dave, it sounds like Dave has thought the roadway through. The vacation of the vacated half circle on Melody Hill sounds like it's going to happen. Sounds like a temporary drive, this could be a temporary drive. I don't know what forces it to — become temporary. That's something that I don't know how the motion would be worded if we really wanted it to be connected to Melody Hill. I don't know how to do that later on. That sounds like the removal of the garage, based on issuing of a grading permit or — something like that is real possible. So I see some things that we can do to the motion at hand so I really don't have, other than structuring a motion that would be legal to connect that — 4 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 garage to Melody Hill in the future when the road goes through. I don't know what leverage we have later on. Mancino: Ron. — Nutting: In general I agree with Ladd's comments. A question I have for staff is on the canopy coverage and the applicant's comments about the additional trees that were under 6 inches. Have we verified any of that information? Al-Jaff: We could do that between now and the time when it appears before City Council. We will work with the applicant on that. Nutting: Okay. I guess I agree with staffs recommendation on that point but if there are already plantings that would meet the requirements that we would put in place so if they — weren't there, that we reduce the overall requirements of meeting the canopy coverage. I don't have any additional comments. Mancino: Bob, any comments? Mike? A question, a couple questions that I had was I see a pump house in the, what is this, the northeastern corner? No, northwestern corner. Is that their's? Is it private? Public? Is it a city pump? Al-Jaff: It's a private pump house. Mancino: Would that be in the right-of-way at all? In the southern 25 feet. Hempel: No. It'd be outside of the right-of-way. Mancino: Okay. So it will still be on their property and we don't have a problem? Joe Zwak: Madam Chair? If I could make a comment. That pump house is proposed to be removed. Mancino: Thank you. I don't have any other questions or discussion. May I have a motion? — Conrad: Let me ask. Dave, the vacating the half circle on Melody Hill. You're comfortable with that, right? — Hempel: Once the permanent street is in place... Conrad: Okay. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 Hempel: I'm just going to... That's a scenario if the commission wishes to proceed, condition number 9 could be deleted because you would not have a shared driveway. You'd have two — separate driveways, one for each lot. Conrad: Okay. — Nutting: Once the street goes through and the vacation. Conrad: Staff, or Kate. The rationale for the garage being to the north was really for saving the tree? Aanenson: And the excess amount of the impervious surface. It swipes the whole front yard and we felt it'd be more appropriate to have it come in at a 90 degree or put the garage behind where you're not taking really the whole front yard out. And we think there's an — alternative, and it sounds like that's the direction you're heading. If you're having problems with the motion, if I can just interject. The issue with the landscaping. Certainly you can _ modify that, that we would work with the applicant. They provide additional information and we'll certainly visit that issue. When we'll work with the City Attorney regarding the, how we can work to get the garage removed without recording the plat or whatever we need to do — there. We can modify that. Then as Dave indicated, you could take out 9 if that's the direction you're leaning, with the driveway. And I think Dave's right. I think we can work something out for the vacation of the driveway. I understand what your concern is there but I — feel comfortable, and I think Dave does too, that we can get that resolved. Conrad: Okay. Well, we'll see what happens. It's not as simple as you might think. — Mancino: I'm just waiting. Conrad: Now what would guarantee? The only what I will let this garage go to the east is if we have the leverage to get the driveway, the temporary driveway changed. Aanenson: And that would be part of your motion. To say the driveway has to be within the existing easement area. It can't go across the front yard. It'd have to be in the existing easement area. Hempel: Within the 25 foot... Aanenson: Correct. That would be the specific language. Within the 25 foot. 6 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 Conrad: Right now, to put a temporary driveway in, it would have to be in the existing right- of-way. Hempel: That's where we would recommend because that's the future alignment of the street. — Conrad: Okay. And that would still, we wouldn't be cutting down trees and that. Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: Okay. Okay, we've got a lot of thoughts and I'm not sure whether they're going to be sorted in. Anyway, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends — approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-2 for the Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition for 2 single family lots as shown on the plans received March 10th subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following changes. I want point number 1 to remain but I want a — footnote in there that would say that staff is to verify the canopy coverage with the applicant in the coming 2 weeks and make a recommendation to the City Council as to what would qualify for the reforestation or for their permanent landscaping requirements. Under point number 2. Dave, help me on this, or Kate, Sharmin. Under building relocation. We're really saying, we're saying that the removal of the garage, you know the applicant wanted the _ removal of the garage based on the issuance of the building permit. Do we need any wording under (b)? Is that the right direction to take? Under (b) of point 2. Or should we. Aanenson: I guess what we're saying is we would prefer that it be done before the plat's — recorded so we're not creating a non-conforming situation. So I think what we can maybe just put a caveat that says, staff will work to insure that. Conrad: Under (b)? — Aanenson: Yeah, under (b). Mutually acceptable that we're not creating a non-conforming. Conrad: Okay. So the addition to (b) is that the staff will work to insure that we're not — creating a non-conforming what? Aanenson: Lot. You can't have an accessory structure without a principle structure. Conrad: 3 stands. 4 stands. 5 we'd make some modifications to...I'm looking for what should stay from the point made. The garage shall be relocated. We don't want that. Access — to the garage shall be from the existing, we don't want that. I think from there on stays. Okay. Point number 5. The access to the garage on the plat with the garage to the east of the house, can be achieved through a temporary driveway on the easement which will be 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 removed when the permanent Melody Hill road goes through with the applicant putting in a permanent drive off of Melody Hill at that time. Sentence in the staff report under 5. The — second half of the second sentence all the way to the end of the paragraph will remain. Point number 6 stands. Point number 7 on the staff report will remain. Point number 8 remains. Point number 9 is eliminated. Point number 10 remains. That's the end of my motion. — Nutting: Do we have a point 11. It's complicated. Did we cover the vacation of the cul-de- sac? From the extension of the street. — Mancino: Yes. Hempel: A footnote to that...petitioning to vacate the cul-de-sac at any time. Mancino: At any time, okay. Aanenson: Technically I don't think it was noticed as part of this hearing so we would need to do that. We can take that up separately. — Mancino: So we feel comfortable with how it's done? Do I hear a second? Nutting: Second. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-2 for Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition for 2 single family lots as shown on the plans received March 10, 1995, subject to the following conditions: — 1. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. A total of nine (9) trees will be planted, assuming that none of the existing five — trees will be removed. If any of the existing trees are removed, the replacement number will increase. Tree protection fencing should be placed around all existing trees during construction. (Note: Staff will verify before going to City Council the tree canopy — coverage as it relates to the reforestation and landscaping plan.) 2. Building Department conditions: — a. Demolition Permits: Existing structures on the property which will be demolished or moved will require demolition permits. — b. Building Relocation: Buildings relocated within the city require building permits prior to their being moved to the new site. Such moved buildings are required to — 8 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 meet all the provisions of the currently adopted building code except for energy code requirements. (Note: Staff will work with the applicant to insure that they're — not creating a non-conforming lot) c. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to any grading on the property. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: — a. The house to be built on Lot 1 shall have additional premise identification numbers at the driveway entrance, which shall comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Premises Identification Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. b. Any trees removed from the site will have to be hauled, chipped or cut up. No burning permits will be issued due to proximity of surrounding homes. — 4. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. — 5. The access to the garage, with the garage to the east of the house, can be achieved through a temporary driveway on the easement which will be removed when the — permanent Melody Hill road goes through with the applicant putting in a permanent drive off of Melody Hill at that time. The existing garage and shed shall be removed within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. Financial guarantees shall be posted with the city to insure compliance with this condition. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies for demolition/relocation — of the existing shed and garage. 6. The applicant shall provide the city with a $500.00 escrow prior to the city signing the — final plat for review and recording of the final plat documents. 7. Lot 1, Block 1 shall be charged at the time of building permit issuance, one sanitary — sewer and water connection and hook-up charge. The connection and hook-up charges for 1995 have been established at $7,000.00 and $2,425.00 respectively. — 8. Prior to the city signing the final plat, the applicant shall pay the city a storm water connection fee for Lot 1, Block 1. The connection fees for water quality and quantity have been established at $560.00 and $1,386.00 respectively. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 9. The southerly 25 feet of Lot 2, Block 1 shall be dedicated as street right-of-way with the final plat documents. Lot 2, Block 1 shall be reconfigured to arrive at the necessary — square footage with a minimum of 15,000 square feet. All voted in favor and the motion earned. — (Kate Aanenson excused herself from the meeting at this point due to a personal conflict of — interest for the next item.) PUBLIC HEARING: — REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 16.34 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 16.34 ACRES INTO 19 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH ON LAKE LUCY ROAD, (1471). POINTE LAKE LUCY WEST, MICHAEL BYRNE. Public Present: Name Address Steve Dirks 1205 West Ash, Olivia, MN — Al Weingart 5330 St. Albans Bay Road, Shorewood Joe & Gayle Morin 1441 Lake Lucy Road Brian Tichy 1471 Lake Lucy Road — Jerry Hoffman 6830 Utica Terrace Jill Willis 1571 Lake Lucy Road Dale & Gloria Carlson 6900 Utica Lane — Shannin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Just one question of staff. Any applicant has the right to bring a plat in front of us. Al-Jaff: Correct. — Conrad: Whether it meets our standards or not. We are obligated to look at that, even though it's obviously missing some things that we require by ordinance. Correct? — Al-Jaff: Correct. I mean we could have said that this was an incomplete application. However, we just wanted to get the thoughts of the Planning Commission. We wanted to — 10 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 make sure we're moving on the same track. And we wanted to get your input on it. But yes, you do have to review the application. Mancino: With that, is the applicant here and would you like to make a presentation? Michael Byrne: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Michael Byrne. I reside at 5428 Kimberly Road in Minnetonka. Normally under the circumstances...speaking to his proposal. That is not our intention...We are working with staff and staff has been very gracious in working with us. We are in mid stream...We met with the neighbors last night and learned a lot of commentary. Madam Chair was there so she... I don't want to take a lot of your time since...I wish however to garner as much information from you as possible... You will hear from the neighbors. Mr. and Mrs. Morin...I can only ask that we continue to have the opportunity to work with staff and working with... I had made plans with Alan Olson myself but Sharmin from staff has stole my thunder already. To give you an idea of the... The changes that we're trying to make to this proposal are going to be hard. This is a very, very difficult subdivision. We have somewhere between 72 to 78 percent coverage of _ trees. We have terrain changes. We have ponds...We really do wish for you to listen to those comments...await for any questions you have. Mancino: Any questions? Conrad: Not right now. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open up the public hearing please? Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion caned. The public hearing was opened. Al Weingart: My name is Al Weingart. I currently reside at 5320 St. Albans Bay Road over in Shorewood. I recently purchased the island peninsula out in Lake Lucy and also will be purchasing the Sanda home which is at 1685 Steller Court. That's the Sanda home. And relative to my intentions with respect to the island, you guys went through it and the City Council and they approved a plat of a roadway that goes out there that will only service a single family home so my intention all along, after that process was over was always to put a single family home at some point. No immediate plans to do so, but that is why we're buying the Sanda house is to give us some time to acclimate ourselves to the neighborhood and what not. It's a fairly big project so it's going to take some time and more importantly money. General concerns from a personal standpoint are that, the concerns about the economic impact that such a development, as was originally proposed, will possibly have on my property, which is a selfish interest. And of course...shared by many people in the neighborhood. And 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 also on the quality and the level of Lake Lucy. I have a real concern about the level of Lake Lucy, not only from Mike's development but also from the standpoint of some of the other — developments around Lake Lucy because my driveway doesn't sit much above the ordinary high water mark and I don't want to be using a boat to get to it. So those are the personal concerns that I have about this particular development. I'm not opposed to development. I — just wanted some sensitivity relative to those kinds of things looked at. Overall I think my concerns would be to preserve the natural, sort of preserve, nature preserve setting of that whole area of that north shore. We don't have a lot of lakes in Chanhassen and I think the — city character of the lakes, would surround the lake changes dramatically although I'm not naive enough to think that it wasn't going to be developed or shouldn't be developed. That's not our position at all. Just that it be developed responsibly. Also there's, as you may know, — there's some wildlife in that area, both on the island and all along this shore it's heavily forested. I think Eric Rivkin will talk a little bit later about some of that but that is a concern. There is a buffer zone that, where this wildlife seems to migrate to and from across all of that all the way out to the western part of Chanhassen so that is a concern. Again I want to reiterate we're not opposed to development at all. We had a meeting last night, and — Mike was gracious enough to call with all the homeowners and we have some Minutes put together that Joe will distribute to you and they can...comments so we're here to kind of give you those rather than sit here and reiterate what's in that packet. Sharmin, could you put this — up? Al-Jaff: I sure can. — Al Weingart: This, again this is a bit preliminary but my point of putting this up here is just to emphasize, it's backwards. What the initial thrust of this whole development has been and — what we've done. You've got a copy of this in a March 28th letter that I distributed that Joe and I...distributed to you and basically the second portion is what, at that point in time, was deemed to be graded to accommodate the home sites. That means all the trees and the slopes — would be impacted by the grading. And this initially of course shocked us because really it amounts to about 80% or 90% of the lot. What isn't graded, it consists of very steep slopes, a buffer zone around the wetland and wetlands themselves. And so that kind of caught our attention and that's what caused us to create a bit of an organization here to just make sure that what is done here is done with some sensitivity. Some of the points on this are that what we're concerned about is really four things generally. The areas along the right hand side. — Right along the water front, or the lakeshore if you will. I'll call it lakeshore. Basically it's very low. There is a proposal to range from 8 foot of fill to be put in there to build up those lots in order so they can have walkouts and look-outs. That I understand may be being — revised to 3 to 4 feet but nonetheless when you fill that site, basically you've got to get rid of all vegetation because you fill with dirt on top, so that's a concern. Between the wetland, the inside wetland. That pond. The big pond and the lake. It's a very sensitive area in there. — 12 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 It's very low. That is, and over to the top. That is an area that's particularly I think critical and I think Eric may be able to speak a little bit to that. This plat here and in subsequent to the conversation plat I guess, whatever it was, had a lot of variances, or needs a lot of variances to accommodate the number of homes that are being put in here. Particularly the private drives that are necessary for that, and I think those should be taken a look at very carefully to make sure that we're not impacting something by putting too many homesites. And I know the pads aren't necessarily the...factor of this whole but it still defies my logic a bit that the more homes that you have in a situation, obviously the more trees that go down and the more slopes that get graded and so that explanation of the pads aren't really that important has not really flown with me and I wish somebody would articulate that to me... That proposal incorporates taking down some very large trees, 24 inch plus in diameter trees and particular in the cul-de-sac area. I don't know how much concession Mike is going to do to move that cul-de-sac...to avoid those trees. I haven't heard anything...but that would be something that we would like to see... Basically the issues we'd like the Planning Commission to consider would be to, a reduction in the tree loss. A reduction in the grading of the site. Custom grading of the lot which last night Mike had agreed to. Reduction in the _ number of lots. Focus on the retention pond location. There's a retention pond that sits right next to the wetland. A pond there and we're concerned about it's ability to hold water and not dump it into the wetland pond which flows directly into Lake Lucy. And probably some of _ the most severe concerns of our's happen to be, and these were brought up last night in the homeowners meeting, were the number of lots that are on the lake, or even the fact that there's any lots on the lake. To have those things moved back away from the lake. They're awfully close to filling with a lot of fill there and there's a lot of wildlife and other types of concerns about what impact it will have, not only on that situation but also on Lake Lucy itself from...standpoint. And I would encourage any of you who haven't walked the site to do so because I think you can't really appreciate the undulation of the land and trees and everything until you've been out there. And I encourage you and whoever else is involved in the process to do that. That's all I have right now. Any questions? Mancino: Any questions? Thank you. Al Weingart: Thank you very much. Mancino: Anyone else? Joe Morin: Madam Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Joe Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. Last time I was here about a month ago I spoke to you, mainly in support of the development going in to the east of my property line. It was not complete support. I had some concerns. Those concerns have been taken care of by the developer. Tonight I'm here before you speaking mainly in opposition to the plan proposed 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 on the west of my property. The differences in the developments, although as Mike last night told the neighbors, he was patterning his development after the Mason Homes development. — The differences are dramatic, notwithstanding the name that he's chosen. Also the character of the land is quite dramatic. I would like to just kind of show a little overview of some of the differences. The Mason Homes development is laid out on a ridge. Mason Homes took — great consideration from the recommendations of the staff to reduce some of the grading originally proposed. They reduced the number of lots which reduced the impact on our property. The President has agreed to move some pine trees between our property and some — of the adjacent homes to further reduce the impact on us. So our relationship there has been quite good. The topography is significantly different, as the staff report points out. The Mason Homes development is on a ridge, whereas the Tichy, Byrne development is located — kind of in more of a ravine area, which is also heavily wooded. Sharmin, if you could put up that. These are some numbers that I gleaned from the staff report. The bottom line here is _ that in the Coey property, buildable acreage, I think I can read that from here. Is 11.1 acres. And the buildable acreage on the Tichy/Christensen property is 7.97. Now I want to emphasize and stress here that it's not the number of lots that's my main concern but rather _ how the land is treated. I'm only showing this to kind of emphasize the differences in the two developments. If we use the same ratio and apply it to the Tichy/Christensen property as the Mason Homes development used in creating their plat. That would suggest that 13 to 14 — building sites would be compatible. Not as a compatible development. Not even considering the more difficult terrain that we have to deal with on that site. The status of the development to the east of my property is, the neighbors are, I don't plan to speak for all of — them but in large part, most neighbors are well satisfied with what went on there. And to the west of my property, most neighbors are very unhappy about what's proposed. So, I want to also emphasize that I'm not opposed to development to the west. In fact, Gayle and I will — benefit from a development to the west greatly but we want to see a good development, and we would rather have no development than what we see being proposed right now. The intentions that we have with respect to our property, I want to make that clear. We have 3 — potential sites, 3 developable sites on our property, one of which we have already developed. That's our present home. When we put our home in, we built it, I cleared the area by hand. There were no significant trees that were removed. There's no grading for the site required — except to put in our driveway. We designed the home with the site in mind and took about 3 years before we actually, after owning the property, before we actually built a home on this site. The second site is located a little bit southwest of our existing home and in that area, I — have to acknowledge that there is one significant tree. That staff asked us for conceptual plan potential homesites so we don't know exactly how that, where that tree fits in the site but it is something that is a concern to us. The third site on our property is south of the slew area, — which is again more south and east of our existing home. And that's in a natural clearing so the only brush that would need to be removed, I think right now from my walking the site, although I'm not exactly certain where the boundaries are, it looks like it's mainly...and — 14 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 buckthorn. So the net impact on our 5 acres from any future development plans that we would have would be removal of basically one significant tree. Possibly removal, but we'll — do our very best to avoid that. Although like I said, we have not platted the property. We don't know what the implications are for the runoff and so on from that kind of development. I think 3 homes on 5 acres is something quite reasonable, and in dealing with the character of — the property, we've taken great care to avoid any tree loss or any other...impact to the environment. Now the main concerns with what's proposed there. Not with the number of lots, as I said before but rather how the land is treated and Al has spoke to many of the concerns that I share with both Al and the rest of our neighbors there. I'm not opposed to Mike Byrne developing but I do object to the callousness with which the, and the insensitivity of the design process that's used and the results of the plan that's being proposed. I don't feel — that it does deal sensitively with the environment, and that's of grave concern to me. Ironically one of my biggest concerns is in the area furthest from my house, and that's in an area where Al spoke of where right between these large ponds on our property and on Tichy's property, and the lake, the plan is to bulldoze the area, putting in up to 8 feet of fill and erecting a house on top of that 8 feet of fill. Not only is there tremendous destruction to the — local environmental there, and Eric will speak to that later. But it's a major block and impediment to the wildlife migration path. Sharmin, if you could put up the, well that's a little bit of a representative drawing but. — Al-Jaff: Like that? Joe Morin: A little bit. In that proposed Lot 10 there, the end lot. The land is very much — constricted in that area but the wetland area to the east and to the west widens broadly in those areas and on the Mason...as you travel further west there's a very large wildlife wetland area. And so I see that as a very constrictive impediment to the free travel of the wildlife. — Not just for this site but for the whole region. The whole area. Not to mention that a home positioned on top of 8 or 10 of fill would be a tremendous eye sore for the whole area. Now — my other concerns I share with the neighbors. I share with Al. We brought those out in our meeting with Mike last night. Mike didn't take any notes during that meeting but Al and I consolidated our notes and put together the Minutes of the meeting and I'd like to provide — each of you with a copy so that this can also be, and Mike with a copy, so that this neighborhood input can be considered in the further improvement of the plan. We also have copies for people who participated in the meeting and any other neighbors who are interested — in obtaining copies of the Minutes, they can call myself or Al. Again, I don't want to take a whole lot of your time reiterating concerns that are already documented in these Minutes, so thank you very much. Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 Eric Rivkin: My name is Eric Rivkin. I live at 1695 Steller Court, which is just to the west of this development about 400 or 500 feet, and I share lakeshore on the other side of the — island. Opposite side... I'm also Co-Chairperson of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. I went to the neighborhood meeting last night. I've read some of the concerns that Al and Joe have had. I've read the staff report. I used to own Joe's lot, sandwiched inbetween both of — these developments, and I know both pieces of land...very intimately because I had owned it for a year. Picked lots of raspberries there. Watched a lot of wildlife and meditated out there. It's really quite a place. I think this is somewhat of an inaccurate depiction of the — lake. That edge right there, that you see between the water and the land is really the edge of cattails. The actual high water mark goes more around here. You can connect the dots I guess. It goes around here and goes way up in here. The proposed setbacks from here really —' put a strain of the water quality of the development. It's very clear right now. There's a lot of beavers and muskrats that excavate this area. They depend on a corridor between here and _ a pond to be able to traverse. The whole area around here, around Lake Lucy and this side of the lake primarily is basically a giant wildlife refuge. There's flocks right now of Great Blue Herons that do nest in there. There is a rookery here. They nest in the large tree canopy that — surrounds this pond. If that integrity of that tree canopy is destroyed, which it will be on this side of this lot, I talked to wildlife biologists today, who works for the St. Paul Parks System and she has manages the park at Crosby Farm where they have migratory waterfowl there all — the time. And she said if these are disturbed, they're very sensitive to being disturbed and they will leave the nesting sites. So we will lose that. It's an environmental impact that is serious. The other particulars from the environmental issues. There's many water...I'm — concerned about. I saw a plan Michael produced last night that had a Walker Pond or something next to here. I want to comment that I think is potentially disastrous. We have, I know that 4 years ago when Willow Ridge was proposed, there was a lot of talk about, it was an experiment. This Walker Pond concept. There was a pond put right on the edge of this giant 1.4 acre pond, which is about the same size as this one. And the theory was that the water would drain into there. Hold the sediment. Hold the nutrients before it would dump — itself into there. Well, the water level was planned to rise. Well the whole thing, including the Walker Pond, is all underwater as the same continuous lake right now. So there is no benefit derived from this Walker Pond. The same thing is proposed here. The same — detriment will happen. The water quality will not improve. It will go down. If that is, the difference between this and the Willow Ridge is they have 3 or 4 Walker Ponds for that whole development. This has one and it was located right smack in the middle of the most — sensitive part of this development. Or sensitive part of the drainage. Highest impact. Potential impact it would have on water quality. This pond drains into Lake Lucy with a running stream right now. There's water flowing in it now? From what I heard. — Joe Morin: Oh yeah. 16 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 Gayle Morin: Almost all the time. Eric Rivkin: Almost all the time. There's springs that feed into this, okay. And there's no filtration between here and Lake Lucy. You dump high nutrient loading into this storm sewer system here, it's going to go right into Lake Lucy. Unfiltered where you cannot harvest the nutrients, the phosphorous away. So it's lacking in design and I need to state that on record so that Mr. Byrne will take that and hire the appropriate resources to make sure that it meets ordinances when it comes to water quality interception. There are springs in the area. There's running springs that come flowing out sprinkled all throughout the Lake Lucy area. I think there's one here. From what I remember, there was one over on Jill Willis. There's several on Jill Willis' property. There's one right here...because I saw it coming right through the snow. I think there's one or two right here. I think engineering wise, Mr. Byrne is going to discover that if he puts a house there, I don't think he will be able to. There are running springs that keep the deer, who come and nest there...or bed down every single night in this region. There also, I don't think that it was very sensitive to put a cul-de-sac right in the middle of a grove of mature oak trees when 30 feet from there, you could just move it and terminate it likewise. The impact of putting large amounts of fill on here will destroy the natural, I guess filtration that would be left between here and there on the development. I think this would be a good place to have maybe your retention pond and open space that would be left for wildlife. This was brought up in a neighborhood meeting last night as a strong suggestion that was agreed upon by all the residents. And I think the economic impact of doing something like that, reducing the number of lots to maybe 9 or 10 where you have an amenity that would improve the value of the homes to the point where I don't think he's really going to lose any money. I developed some land in Minnetonka, 4 acres and put 6 lots in. It had 90% of the existing tree canopy was preserved because I wrote in the covenants, and I suggested this to Mike last night. We had covenants that would say the developer, which is me, would have right of refusal for any builder to come in and cut a tree. I would say it can be cut or it can't be cut. Or I can approve your design with this house so you can tuck it in here and there. Whatever. But that kind of environmental sensitivity is lacking here. If Mr. Byrne doesn't have it himself, I suggest that he retain the services of a developer and we suggested to him a name that, retain the services of some professional who can satisfy that type, to design it environmentally properly. Well, let me get back to my sheet here. The oaks. As you heard, almost all the oaks on this place are red oaks. I had a red oak on my place when I put my house in. I was trying to be very, very careful not disturbing out to the tree line and I like the idea of having them report 1 1/2 times the drip line and not disturbing key trees. Well, destroy all the trees...but in order to, I've seen houses by a sensitive builders go right up within 10 feet of a dripline and not destroy a tree because they knew how to build next to it. It's possible to do that here. You just need some talent to make it happen. I'm concerned about the fact that the trees themselves are home to many species of animals. The holes and they come in trees...but also the mallard ducks. They eat the acorns and the 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 mallards, and I know I'm right about this, they flock there by the hundreds during migration and they do nest there. Every single year. They need the food. They need the perch space. — They need the tree canopy. They need those oaks intact as much as possible. And I don't think that, I would have to believe that there's enough teeth in the ordinances we have to say no to this level of destruction. Simply saying to the developer it's okay to destroy everything — as long as you replant or, just does not meet the intent of the comprehensive plan. And I think that Mr. Byrne can take that and use that as an important thing to preserve. There is beaver sitting right there on the site, in the lagoon to the south of the property. They've been — cutting down some saplings on the island and on Christensen's property. Byrne's property right now. And right between the pond and the lake. Now if you put houses in there, some neighbor's going to get in a house and want to shoot them and they need to live. They need — to, we have to...to the needs of the beavers here and there's a beaver lodge in that lagoon right now. It's been there for many years and they keep building new ones all the time. Every year they try to come back. And they need to live so we have to... Well, thank you — very much. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Would you like to come up? Thank you. If you could give your name and address. Jill Willis: My name is Jill Willis and I own the property adjacent to the...Tichy property and essentially I just want to say for the record that there are...development as has been proposed - would be pretty tragic... _ Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? May I have a motion? Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Thank you. Comments from the commissioners. Ladd? Conrad: I'm going to speak in a two part. The first part relates to our subdivision ordinance, — and then the second part relates to my personal feelings in how I'd like to see this property develop. In the subdivision ordinance I think there are, at least there are 7 major points that the staff has outlined and basically this development, or proposed development, misses the — first 5. From the standpoint of variances. From the standpoint of water quality pond that should be there. From the standpoint of sensitive to the physical characteristics of the site. From the standpoint of storm drainage. From the standpoint of environmental damage. And — these are not, I guess I'm not saying that personally, there are not personal comments. They're just my review of the ordinance versus the project and the project fails in 5 out of 7. Maybe the reason I started this conversation off with why is this here. In terms of how it — 18 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 should be developed. I'm going to echo a couple things that staff has said. I think staff has done a good job of reviewing this. I think they've given us good input. I'm pretty — comfortable with that staff is trying to guide this. So I think the developer, the owner, I think as you work with staff, they're really going to represent a great deal of, at least my philosophy and I think it's philosophy that's carried out through the ordinance. The — subdivision ordinance. So it's not willy nilly. It's not personal opinion. I think it's substantial defensible, solid guidelines. In terms of how, what I would recommend. In terms of my concerns as to how you make this a development that works. We know that developments can work. We've seen them in the neighborhood. We've seen the neighborhood actually support them so I don't think the neighbors are out to say, don't develop. They're not. I didn't hear any of the neighbors say that. I think it's how we do it. — And I've got a couple observations and the first one's going to reflect staffs comment. I won't approve any variances unless we see an environmental sensitivity. Just flat out, I'll trade. I'll do some horse trading. But right now it's all one sided. I'm real nervous about the 8 feet of fill on the south part. Regardless. 8 feet next to the lake for so many reasons. Now maybe it's not 8 feet. Maybe it's 4. So we'll find out. We don't have a real plan in front of us but even real well designed water quality ponding has problems. And so when we — start hauling in 4 to 8 feet of fill for 4 lots, that's a lot of fill right next to the water. It's just extremely nervous about that. I don't know how you manage it during the fill. I don't know how you manage it after the fill, to tell you the truth. Erosion control. The impact on the natural habitat. It seems abusive to me. But most importantly I don't know how you manage 8 feet of fill going in there to not impact the lake. And Dave will say, engineering we can do _ anything. Obviously there has to be some storm water ponding. Storm water ponding on site. Obviously. I don't like to look at plans that don't even have it. It says hey, it's not a real plan. This is a game we're playing here. The site, as I saw it, looked like every street was aimed for a tree over 24 inches. And I say that in jest. I don't want to be perceived as taking shots here but, I'm not going to force somebody to preserve every tree on this site, and you don't have to and nobody does. But when I see all the major trees on this site that are — coming down, it's bad design. So that, and I know you can fix that. So I won't even extend my conversation that I know we can miss those trees. Custom grading has to be done on every lot. And the cul-de-sac has to be moved. Those are my comments. Mancino: Thank you. How did you say what I had written down? Ron. — Nutting: Yeah. Very well done Ladd. I guess one initial comment I would like to make is I do appreciate the developer's comments about, I guess first in holding the neighborhood meeting. The projects that get to this point without the neighborhood meetings really seem to not go anywhere. And holding that meeting I think was a good start. As well as the expression of willingness to work with staff and make revisions to the plan. I'm not a developer. I rely on staff and I think staff does a good job, for the most part. No, staff does 19 Planning Commission Meeting -April 5, 1995 do a very good job. So when I read the staff report, as well as walk the site, and maybe just to echo one of Ladd's comments. The area where the cul-de-sac is and the grove of trees at — that location. Without greater sensitivity to tree preservation, as you acknowledged, the site is heavily wooded. Trees will go down. There's no question about that. We're not here to save every tree but just to responsibly assist in the responsible development of the site. I would — echo all of Ladd's comments and again I can't comment further because I'm not sure what we're going to be looking at, and as you acknowledged, but I think the neighbors comments bear some review and the process but I think staff has done a very good job in trying to — shape the thing, the plan so that as Ladd puts it, variances require some effort towards I guess sensitivity is really a big issue so those are my comments. — Mancino: Thank you. Mike. Meyer: Really just to echo the same thing that Ladd has said already. I can't really add — anything to it but just go on record as saying that I agree with him 100%. _ Mancino: Alright. Did you get his comments Mr. Byrne? _ Michael Byrne: Yes. Mancino: Did you get his comments were the same? Thank you. I also echo, would like to comment on the same concerns that I have. I'd like to add just a few more. One are the _ retaining walls that I saw on the plans, knowing that they're not final but if there are going to be retaining walls in the next version that we see, I'd like to know a little bit more about them. These were 100 to 400 feet long. So I'd like to see, why are they there? What are _ they preserving? How high are they? How are they going to be constructed? From an engineering point of view, and from an environmental point of view. Because I think that we had, or what I saw were 8 of them. My other concern is about the accesses to the properties — on the east and on the west, and that would be the Willis' and Morin's. And I would like to see the developer and staff work with the property owners on both sides as far as where exactly those access points will be. Not only for roadway but for sewer and water. And I — would like to make sure that all parties, if we get there, are in agreement on where those are. And that they do take into the environmental concerns that we have. And I have some concerns about the construction of a private street. Making sure that we do not limit, on — either side of the property that's going to be developed, what the other owners can do. That means that if there's a limit to 4 houses on private drives, that it comes back to us. If we want to see 5, that there are very clear illustrations as to how that is preserving that area. I concur — with Ladd that I need a very good explanation, something that I can understand about the necessity for the amount of fill in the southern portion of this property. Not only having to do with walkouts but having to do with sewer. And some other options besides that amount — 20 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 of fill. The location and the size of the retention pond I would like to have staff and the applicant work together to locate it in an area that will not destroy significant tree coverage, and at the same time will be effective storm water quality treatment pond. And it would be my recommendation to staff and City Council that maybe you consider conferring with or getting a second opinion from an outside expert on that. Not only the location but how effectively it will work. 100% of the time... And I guess just in summary I would like to say that I would just like to see the plat comply more with the subdivision ordinance 18-60(d). Lots shall be placed to preserve and protect amenities. Natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. And I'd like to see this comply with that ordinance. Those are my comments. Conrad: I'd like to make a motion Madam Chairman, I'd recommend that the Planning Commission tables action on Rezoning #95-1 and Subdivision #95-3 and to have the applicant work closely with staff to resolve some of our concerns. Mancino: Do I have a second? Nutting: Second. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission tables action on Rezoning #95-1 and Subdivision #95-3 and to have the applicant work closely with staff to resolve the issues outlined by the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A TWO STORY BUILDING (RICHFIELD BANK AND TRUST WITH A TOTAL OF 12,166 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78Th STREET AND KERBER BOULEVARD, LOT 1, BLOCK 3, BURDICK PARK ADDITION, RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY, INC. Public Present: Name Address Jeff Pflipsen 5410 Vanderwood Lane, Plymouth W. G. Kirchner 6830 Newton Avenue So, Richfield Jon Thorstenson 4 Glen Court, Chaska Jan Susee 6625 Lyndale Avenue So, Richfield Steve Kuchner 6625 Lyndale Avenue So, Richfield 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions of staff? Okay, would the applicant like to present? Jan Susee: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Jan Susee. My office — address is 6625 Lyndale Avenue South in Richfield. I'm appearing on behalf of Richfield State Agency Inc. Also in attendance with me is William Kirchner, the President of Richfield State Agency, and Steven Kirchner, the Chief Operating Officer. We also have with us — members of the architectural staff of HTG Architects, Jon Thorstenson and Jeff Pflipsen. What we've attempted to do is provide a quality building very important right in the city of Chanhassen and we've done everything we can to make this the centerpiece of the city, — because I think it really does exactly that. It will be the primary base of the branch for Richfield Bank and Trust Company on the main floor with the drive up's. We've reviewed all the staff recommendations. We initially attempted to have a common driveway in order to try to minimize the amount of blacktop on the site. We understand there are recommendations and we concur with those and we'll accept those. And the other recommendations that they — made, we also accept. There is some conflict in the number of trees. We may have more than we need. We want to make the site amenable. We want the fountain in front to kind of be a centerpiece and something that the city will be proud of. And all of us are available for — any questions that you might have. Mancino: Thank you. Jan Susee: Thank you. Mancino: May I have a motion to open it to a public hearing? Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the — motion carried. The public hearing was open. Mancino: This is a public hearing. Would anyone like to come up and speak on this item? — Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? It is so noted that no one came up. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the — motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Ron. — Nutting: I don't see anything that jumps out at me as being unacceptable. I support staffs recommendations. — 22 — 4— Planning Commission Meeting • April 5, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Mr. Conrad. — Conrad: Well 3 questions that have absolutely no relevance to what you've given us. You're the fourth bank in town. What's bringing you here? — Jan Susee: I guess the bank is looking for expanding sites and this area is growing incredibly rapidly. .- Conrad: It's that simple? Jan Susee: That simple. The population growth I think of all the towns around Chaska is expected to, or Chanhassen is expected to increase approximately 50% before the year 2000 and we just want to be part of that and take some of that business. — Conrad: If Byerly's wasn't here, would you be here? Jan Susee: The site actually selected is very important. Actually we had numerous debates and discussions about the question of whether to be on Highway 5 and get that corridor of people lined up on the traffic lights down there every morning to bring their checks in, or to be next to Byerly's and banking won out in the sense that it's always good to be near Byerly's. Conrad: Yeah. And as I say, these questions have absolutely nothing to do with your — proposal here. Second question. Did you ever consider moving the building closer to 78th Street? — Jan Susee: We discussed that with some length with staff and that was originally, but because of the drive-up and such, it's very difficult to put it any closer. Conrad: That's too bad but I know what you've got to do. Third comment. You have 53 parking stalls. Banking in the future probably won't have people. They're going to do it from — home so...you answered all my questions. Mancino: Well no wait. In the future could we cover that parking with grass and have it — more of a... Jan Susee: I think the ordinance requires like 51. We actually I think may have amended — that to have like 52. Take out a couple of spaces so we're trying to exact...because you're right, you no longer need them. I know the home office in Richfield, although it has other uses, they have the most drive-ups in the city I think, at Richfield Bank and Trust's main 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 office, and it used to be they had the traffic people to handle those. Because of the ATM machines, it's changed banking substantially but basically we exactly complied with the — ordinance. Conrad: Would you like to do less? Jan Susee: We'd always love to do less because we think the landscaping, in fact as I say, I think we had too many trees, if I'm not mistaken, on the site that we put on there and we — want to heavily screen behind us the back end of Target. Conrad: Very seriously, banking is, it's not a car parking deal and I guess,just as a comment — for staff. You call the shots on that one but boy, to force them to meet an ordinance, given that they don't need 53 spots. Now they may. — Jan Susee: At one point this was, there was substantially because we were having trouble with the area, the vacated portion of 78th Street. We've since resolved that issue. At one — point it was extremely crucial because we have to pull everything back to avoid that area because of some title problems. Those have been solved. Conrad: Again, if you care. I'm not going to make any motion one way or another but if you care, I'd sure like you to talk to staff about reducing that requirement. That's up to you. That's your call. — Jan Susee: We want people to come there so green area helps. r Conrad: It would. Jan Susee: Yeah. And it is a hard decision. — Mancino: Yeah. It would be wonderful and personally as a community bank in the suburb, or whatever, you have much less frequent trips. I've seen studies, banking studies. — Jan Susee: Although I kept thinking that all those people driving by on Highway 5 with their checks every morning. — Mancino: Thank you. Bob, any comments? Skubic: I don't have any questions. Mancino: Mike? 24 — — Planning Commission Meeting -kril 5, 1995 Meyer: Nothing now. — Mancino: I have a few and that is, we usually get to see materials, color rendering of what the building will look like. Where is that? — Generous: I only have a little one. Mancino: Okay. And what about the materials Bob? Because that is one of the things that is in the Highway 5 as a part of accepting of the building is actually seeing the materials and seeing the color. Jeff Pflipsen: I'm Jeff Pflipsen with the architectural firm. The color rendering that Bob has does show colors and what we're looking at is a buff sand brick color for the, earth tone color for the major portion of the building with a...pale cherry or more of a mahogany brick also... A majority of the building will be brick and then we'll have some access banding that you see along the middle of the building that is more of a silvery gray color along with to compliment the sloping metal roof which is a similar color. Mancino: Okay. I would like to recommend that prior to the City Council meeting that we get a sample of the building materials and the real colors...for them to have this plus the materials and do also, to staff, in the future we always like to have materials. — Generous: We did request that they bring those. Mancino: Oh! Strong request. Thank you very much. The only, I just have a couple _ comments and one was, I don't know if anyone else was concerned but to get to the drive thru you've got to go through the whole parking lot. There's not a short cut way to get there and every time somebody parks to get to the drive thru, I certainly don't know how to solve it _ but I thought that that was too bad. And that's a configuration of the lot and I know you'd work with the applicant probably on that Bob. — Generous: Well they did have a shorter route but that put the drive thru on the northeast corner of the site, and did you want that to be your downtown presentation? — Mancino: You mean I don't have another option? A third one, or a fourth one. No. Generous: It's tough. .. Mancino: Yeah, because every car will have to go through that whole parking lot. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 Generous: Or come in through Target. Mancino: So, that is a concern and hopefully City Council will hear that too. I am an admirer, very big admirer of Mr. Ernst as a landscape architect. I would, have seen his work often. And so I would just like to make sure that if there are some changes in design, as far as deleting a spruce tree, etc, that staff work with the applicant, the landscape architect, to review that with him. I would appreciate that. And this is one of the better landscape plans that we will have in our city, and it was very well done. The building architecture will look — great downtown. Do I have a motion? Nutting: I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council — approve Site Plan #95-4 for Richfield Bank and Trust for a 12,166 square foot, two story office building on property zoned PUD located on Lot 1, Block 3, Burdick Park Addition, subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report. Conrad: Second. Mancino: May I make a friendly amendment to that? Nutting: Yes. Mancino: That on 17 and 18, that we just add the line that staff will consult with the — applicant's landscape architect in discussing these issues... Nutting: I would accept that. — Conrad: Me too. Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Site Plan #95-4 for Richfield Bank and Trust for a 12,166 square foot two story office building on property zoned PUD, located on Lot 1, Block 3, Burdick Park — Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The access to the bank off Kerber Boulevard is unacceptable. The current design is such that responding fire apparatus would have to travel in the opposing lane on Kerber in order to negotiate the turn. Submit further options to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. — 2. Install one (1) additional fire hydrant at entrance to bank parking lot off Kerber Boulevard. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location. — 26 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 3. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants pursuant to City Ordinance 9-1. 4. The driveway access from Kerber Drive shall be revised per staffs recommendations as shown on Attachment 1. 5. Sanitary sewer and water service for the building shall be from Kerber Drive. 6. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with storm drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event. 7. The applicant will be responsible for relocating all existing landscape plant materials that will be in conflict with the site grading. — 8. The applicant will be responsible for adjustment of all city manholes and gate valves that are affected by the result of site grading. 9. The City's Building Inspection Department will perform the inspections for all utility connections. The applicant will need to apply for and obtain the appropriate permits through the City's Building Department. 10. The applicant shall install a one-way traffic control sign on Target's employee parking lot island directly west of the proposed access to Target's parking lot. — 11. Erosion control fence and rock construction entrances need to be included on the grading plan. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points. Construction access to the site shall be limited to Kerber Drive. A revised grading plan shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. The applicant shall install a six foot sidewalk from West 78th Street to the southern — property line within the Kerber Boulevard right-of-way. 13. Light poles shall be neutral colors. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure — sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the property line. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. Light poles shall be Coren, shoe box — light standards. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 14. The applicant shall provide a bench or other seating system as part of the fountain area to create a sense of public space. — 15. The applicant shall install aeration/irrigation tubing in each peninsula or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. — 16. The applicant shall supply the city with $22,500.00 financial guarantee (letter of credit or cash escrow) to guarantee landscaping for the project. — 17. Revise the landscaping plan substituting a variety of white oak for the two Greenspire lindens located on either side of the sidewalk in the northeast corner of the site and — replace the northern most crabapple on the peninsula landscape area at the northwest corner of the bank with either a Patmore Ash, Imperial Locust, or any other tree from the city's primary or secondary deciduous tree list. 18. Remove one of the three Scotch pines on the north side of the site. Staff will consult with the applicant's landscape architect in making decisions regarding conditions 17 and 18. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 27,750 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 2.68 ACRES LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED ON LOT 4, — BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, 2ND ADDITION, POWER SYSTEMS. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. — Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners of staff? Seeing no questions, or hearing no questions, would the applicant like to present please. — Bernard Herman: Madam Chairperson, members of the Commission, my name is Bernard Herman and I'm the architect...Also present here tonight is Mr. Gary Bergman, who is the — President of Power System, Mark Steingas who is the President of Benson-Orth, and Mike Monson. And Mike will be making a few comments towards the end of our presentation about the project so he'll be assisting me in just a few minutes. There's been a pretty — thorough staff report, as you all know from this packet of information and so we're not going to try to duplicate all of that information in our comments but we would like to make kind of a brief overview presentation. It won't take too long. Afterwards we would welcome your 28 — — Planning Commission Meeting -April 5, 1995 comments and questions. Before we discuss the project, I thought it might be worthwhile for you to hear from Gary Bergman about Power Systems and I'm just going to ask him to make — a few comments and you might be interested in hearing about the company and what they do and so on. Gary. — Gary Bergman: Madam Chairperson, members of the Commission, my name is Gary Bergman. I'm President of Power Systems. We're an industrial distributer specializing in the sale of hydraulics and...primarily to other companies that manufacturer industrial and... equipment. We have been in business for approximately 29 years. We're currently located in Eden Prairie. We're expanding. The same problem as everyone else. Running out of space and we need some place to go where you get more land and build a bigger building. It's primarily a family owned company, but there are also members of our company, employees that are also stockholders as well. We are moving primarily for more space and we chose Chanhassen because it's probably most importantly because we have a lot of employees who — live out in the western suburbs and it was a convenient location for them. We have quite a few employees that live in Chanhassen and in suburbs surrounding Chanhassen. We're very excited about moving to Chanhassen and the opportunity to help our company expand in the future. If you have any questions about our company, I'd be happy to answer them. Mancino: Any questions? Thank you. — Bernard Herman: We've got a board on the wall that I'm just going to put up for the Council here. Just in terms of talking about the site development, I think there are a few aspects or characteristics of the site development that we think are positive. We think the orientation of the building with respect to Commerce Drive. Having the office structure itself fully facing the building. We don't have any of these sideways things and so on. We have our office element of the building with a full flush on face towards the access drive, and that obviously is in this location and the warehouse area is directly behind. In terms of the loading area, that is at the far north end of the east wall, and I think that also is a positive. We have our truck maneuvering, loading area at the far end and at the very, very far north end of the east wall is the dumpster location, which is screened and connected to the building wall itself. — The parking does an L shape kind of configuration with the predominant amount of parking in front of the building. We have provided on this drawing 46 spaces. I think the staff report refers to 49 but I just want to throw this out, and Mike Monson may address this later. We — really have a need for about 28 to 30 spaces. You know this is something you're always going to face with ordinances when...buildings come in. Some of them have more parking requirements than others. It becomes an issue. I think in terms of bituminous areas that don't — get used over a period of time, tend to deteriorate so I think sometimes when you over blacktop, there's a negative result. We do have room to place the necessary parking. This plan shows 46 stalls. We only need 28. It's something maybe we should talk about when 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April $, 1995 we...whether or not there are any options. But the parking area, as I mentioned, is an L shape configuration. The proposed addition is shown on the west end, which...shows approximately — 10,000 square feet. There's an area here that shows a little white square off the west end which is the patio area. We're doing a pretty nice site development built around that outdoor employee patio area. There's also some future parking expansion that's indicated here at the — far end of this and I think staff mentioned that if there is the addition that is built, if a second access is provided, it would likely occur somewhere at this end. I think that would be a more logical consideration. I did mention the loading area. There is one drive thru door, and I — don't know if I had mentioned that. I'm going to leave this up and talk a little bit about the landscaping because actually we do show quite a bit of the landscaping indicated on this plan in color. I might just address what we're doing here. Along the boulevard, or the street, on — Commerce Drive, you can see the large overstory trees. These are hackberries...shown at 30 feet on center along the street which is in conformance to the landscape ordinance. What we tried to do is when we got over to this end, we tried to bring around the hackberry trees to ` turn the corner so we just didn't get a straight line in the access drive. So your overstory hackberries do make a turn. As they come back on this larger boulevard area, it narrows _ down and the planting material intensifies to create some kind of screen of the loading area and we have a combination of coniferous and deciduous plant material, fairly densely located to create this screening effect on the loading area. In the truck area itself, right adjacent to — the overhead doors, you can see additional rows of coniferous plantings to further enhance the screening of the loading area. We tried to create a couple of small clusters of trees that occurred at the east and west corners of the building. This is just a mixture of species that — are intended to give some kind of softening of interest to the corners of the building. The landscape islands of the parking lot, and consistent with the requirements of the ordinance, are landscaped. You'll see these islands occurring all along the parking areas and they all have — decorative tree types of landscaping indicated in that location. We have a row of shrubs all along the office building area, and that's intended to soften the transition of the building itself to the grade and by putting that continuous dense row of shrubs, we create a nice green hedge — along that area. I think we have a real variety of plant mix, if you look over what the species are and I think you probably have that in your packet of information, but we cover just a wide variety of tree types and species, including maples, radiant crabs, Newport plums, I — mentioned the hackberries. We have spruce trees and so on. So if look over the species list, I think you'll see a wide variety and what that tends to do, is give the overall site a very nice character. I think you're going to see leaf and foliage changes and colors. You're going to — see some blossoming. You're going to see some very definite differences, as I said, both in height and in the species and in color. So we think we have a real nice landscaping plan. Maybe not quite as good as the bank. I haven't seen that one but very nice for an industrial — project. Very high quality. Let me just show you a little diagram of what this landscaping does on our building elevation. We'll talk about materials in just a minute. These are the building elevations. And I know this is going to go on backwards. Let me just put this on to — 30 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 give you some idea. Now what you're seeing here in this overlay is if we take the landscaping plan that we've designed and we superimpose the trees and plant materials at each of the elevations, and these are not colored so we just have to look at the peripheral lines of the building. This is what you would see if you were standing just off the property line. So some of the trees are not, I hope this doesn't mislead you. It's not saying that they're all along the building. Some of them are out ahead of the other ones but for somebody who's off site looking at the building, you can see where they're...they're superimposed over each other and you'll get this level of density of plant material. I think as you can see from what's indicated here, it's fairly substantial. I should leave that on but I want to get back to the building elevations and the materials of the building. So I'm going to take this off. If there's any further questions about it, I can put it back up. Let me just talk briefly about the building and materials and I think we all have an interest in that. It was mentioned by staff have we have a pre-cast concrete random rib basic material. That random rib sample, which is sitting over there, offers a very extensive...so the ribs, as you can see and we'll hold up that panel in just a minute. As you can see they have a great deal of undulation and projection so you get a lot of shadow lines and it creates a very nice kind of movement or texture on the wall so it's really... There is an accent stripe that comes across the top of the building, and that portion of the pre-cast panel is interrupted by a smooth texture and again, I don't know if we can start to hold this up but that's the blue area, and maybe we'll do that in a minute, if there's somebody that's strong enough to do that. The flashing is going to be pre-finished rib edge flashing. It will be a pre-finished color. Windows are solar gray. Tinted glass. Window panes are anodized. Clear anodized aluminum. That would include for the window frames and of course the entrance. One of the things that we've done with the entrance, since I mentioned that, is we have kind of an arched form here which is recessed about 4 feet and that is, there's a stucco frame that goes around this arched entrance and that stucco frame sets back 4 feet into the recess which is what the glass entry area is in frame so it's back. So it's a strong shadow line and that whole inside arched surface reflects the same material that you see on the frame itself. Now maybe at this point we can do something to show you what the colors area. Nobody's jumping to the foreground to lift this up... This is your roof edge, which is your white color and the, shall we try to lift this up. If this falls, is it going to break anything? This is the stucco surfacing we had talked about as far as the frame that goes around the entrance. So you get that texture and that color, and that goes all the way around the surface and is recessed in. I mentioned the metal. We have the aluminum frame. I think that's basically the key materials. Here's your smooth blue stripe. The blue stripe comes -- around the building and it terminates at the sign, so I think it's an important aspect of the character of the building because as you can see, the sign there...interrupt the stripe. So that kind of rhythm when you come around the side, the focal point is the sign. Mancino: The bottom piece that you're showing us, what, how does that come in now? As a vertical panel? What's the dimension? 31 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 Bernard Herman: It's an 8 foot wide vertical panel, and we do have the ribs vertically. I thought maybe they were going sideways. The ribs do go vertically from the ground right up _ to the top, within about 8 inches of the top of the building. Mancino: So 8 foot wide by how tall? 10 feet? _ Bernard Herman: 20. Mancino: All one piece? Bernard Herman: One piece. — Mancino: I just wanted to make sure. There's no, it doesn't look like blocks. Bernard Herman: No. There's no blocks. And then of course they're interrupted. The blue is the same panel. There is no joint between the rib and the smooth panel. All they do is when they manufacture the panel, they put some kind of an element in the form and it stops — from then forming the ribs. So it's one solid panel again with no joint. Mancino: And is the color impregnated inside the material or is it painted on top? — Bernard Herman: Well I think a certain proportion of it is absorbed because when you're putting it on a material that has veracity to it, and the quality of the produce we put in, it's — going to be somewhat absorbed in. To the extent of the depth, I can't tell you. I don't think it's one of these products that's absorbed a quarter of an inch into the concrete but I think it's something like 1/16 of an inch that's absorbed into the surface. At this point, before we — conclude our presentation, there were a series of I think 20 staff recommendations and some of the modifications to those recommendations were eluded to in the staff report. But I think — Mike Monson's has some other items that he wants to bring up relative to the recommendations so Mike. — Mike Monson: Hello, I'm Mike Monson with Benson-Orth Associates. Just real quickly I want to say that I'm, it's been really a pleasure working with staff. We met with them twice. We've talked to them on the phone a dozen times. In fact it's been really a pleasant experience working with them. We've gotten all these recommendations and understandings from everyone and I think the developer and the owner understand all of them. Just real quickly Bob, in regards to one of these where you talked about the paving section. We were — going to attach to that and add language in regards to once the soil report was obtained and we could look at the recommendation. It's always been our intent in the loading dock area to provide a geotech fabric in lieu of a thicker Class V mainly because of the, we don't want — 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 the...taking place so we would put a geotech fabric in there to separate that... That was all I had. Everything else...thanks very much. Bernard Herman: I think that will conclude our remarks...I think the only comment I would put on the tail of Mike's comments is my reference to the parking requirements. I don't know how you feel about that but we're looking at a lot of stalls and a lot of portions of our paving area that's not going to be utilized. If there's any help you can give us in that area, fine. If not, you've got the proposal as you see before you. That would conclude our presentation and '— we'll open it up to any questions you have. Mancino: Any questions for the applicant? Conrad: Ah yeah. Mechanicals. I don't see any on the roof. Bernard Herman: There definitely will be mechanicals. We will have it screened. It will be screened with metal panels that we'll screen the rooftop equipment that is the same color...so it will really blend in. It will probably be as inconspicuous as any rooftop screening can be because it's going to be white, pre-finished metal the same as the building. How many units we have, Mike maybe you can let me know. I didn't know if we had 4? 6 now? Okay. So _ there are 6 units and I don't know if you want to comment how they're distributed over the building. Mike Monson: They're basically located in three different areas... Mancino: Would you like to come up please? Thank you Mike. Mike Monson: The...units would be located above the office area in basically three locations. Almost two units back to back. We don't have any units on the roof out here. They're all... Mancino: And how high, how tall would they be? Approximately. Mike Monson: They'd be about the height of this podium. And then like Bernie has mentioned, we'd be using a metal panel to screen them as part of the packet. Also we'd actually end up with, the ridges would actually end up being similar to the pre-cast panels... Conrad: So Bob, do you get into reviewing that? Generous: Yes. Conrad: It's there? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 Generous: Yes. It's sheet 6. Conrad: Okay. Mancino: Any other questions? May I have a motion to close the public hearing? — Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. — Mancino: Comments from the commission. Ron. Nutting: I just, perhaps I fell asleep for a brief moment. I heard your original modification to recommendation number 6. I did not catch the applicant's commentary as to modification of that at the end. If I could just get some clarification. — Generous: I believe he was talking about, they intend to, they plan on using a geo, a synthetic fabric as a base and we're saying, well that would be fine. We just want a soil — engineer's report to say that will work. — Nutting: Okay. Bernard Herman: And that will involve a reduction in the thickness of the base from 12 _ inches to 9. Nutting: The only other comment I have kind of gets to Ladd opening a can of worms on the — bank. But it gets to the parking issue and ordinance requirements versus what makes sense for the development, and I guess I'm, Kate or Bob, in terms of any comments. Have we ever made any deviations from that? I mean typically, I'm assuming that we go the opposite — direction. We're fighting to get the parking spaces. Aanenson: We had this same discussion with Kindercare, if you remember. The last one that — I can recall that we spent a lot of time talking where they felt that they needed more than was required by code. Nutting: Right. Mine's just a question, have we ever gone the opposite direction? We're talking about. Aanenson: Sure, if they can give us a proof of parking that says this is, based on our knowledge of our building in similar type uses, this is all we would require, sure. We can do that on a proof of parking reduction. — 34 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 Nutting: Okay. I guess in terms of my recommendation, I'm in support of the recommendation and with the modifications and I guess I would just add to that. If we can have staff work with the developer and if it's determined that there can be an appropriate reduction of the paving based on what they submit, that I would be supportive of that. No further comments. Conrad: Ditto. Ditto. I'm in support of the project. It looks good. I think they made a good presentation. I think the planning staff has given us good recommendations. I want to re-echo what Ron just said about parking, and Kate you missed it and Bob and Dave will fill you in but we talked with the bank. We talked parking requirements. We talked to the bank about that. We're over requiring. The bank is significant to me because it's downtown. It's 63% impervious surface or whatever and I just know banks don't need that. Well this is taking us into this issue. I don't want to open a can of worms. I really don't. So I guess we're looking for your professional judgment to say hey. Let's not play with this one but. Aanenson: The way we look at it, we're looking at a user going in there now and so they're demonstrating to us that need and we have to look long term. If this use is vacated and something else comes in. We do know that the bank has additional lease space on the second floor. And sometimes a lot of people get in those offices so it's always hard to gauge that so _ I guess we try to hit the middle of the road, because we don't always know what the ultimate tenant's going to be so we've got to balance that. Conrad: I hear you, yet on the other hand, we could reserve. I know we could reserve space that could never be. Aanenson: Landscape it. Conrad: Absolutely. When, as soon as there's a problem, again. That's an administrative problem. The bank made sense to me because it's downtown Chan. It's right, it's right in the middle. Again, when they sell because 4 banks in this community is a whole lot of banks and Burger King takes it over, yeah. We'll have a problem but again, maybe, I'd just like to have staff look at that. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: Nothing to add. Mancino: Bob. 35 Planning Commission Meeting -April 5, 1995 Skubic: I find this to be a very attractive industrial building. Attractive landscaping. I'm impressed. — Mancino: I have a few questions. Bob, what is to the, am I looking at that north/south direction up there? '- Generous: The top of that drawing is east. Aanenson: Should I turn it north? Mancino: Thank you. Okay. The south side of the building, where there are 4 trees across —' that 176 foot span of building, right? Aanenson: On the north side? — Mancino: On the south side. Nutting: North. Mancino: North is up, oh okay. Can you move that? No, I'm just kidding... Okay, thank you. What is on the other side of the north side of where I see the 4 trees lining the back of the building. Is that just the railroad? — Generous: The railroad track's immediately north of this property and then there's additional industrial land on the north side. — Mancino: And there's a huge slope up to the railroad tracks? Generous: Yes, it goes up and then down again and then, there's a big wetland complex so the north side goes way down and then back up to McGlynn's. Mancino: So you cannot see the north side of that building from anywhere? Generous: Well, if they built a 3 story building on the north side. — Mancino: Okay. Or water tower or something. I was concerned with just again, 4 trees on this long spans of 100, practically 180 feet. From my calculations. — Generous: They did pick good trees though. 36 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 Mancino: Those trees are going to take 25 years to get that full so I just was concerned about that big of an expanse without any sort of landscaping detail of knowing where it is. Generous: They also get the transmission lines that go there to add visual interest. — Mancino: That's all my comments. Can I have a motion? Nutting: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council — approves Site Plan #95-5 for a 27,750 square foot office/warehouse building on Lot 4, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition, subject to the conditions as contained in the staff report with the following modifications. The condition number 1 is deleted. Condition — number 4 modified, I need the wording that you provided. Generous: At the time of future expansion. — Nutting: I'm sorry. Generous: At the end of the sentence you add, at the time of future expansion. Nutting: Okay. And with recommendation number 6 modified. Generous: Again at the end of the sentence, or an alternative based on recommendations contained in a soil report prepared by a soil engineer. Nutting: Okay, I had that one. And with no other modifications. Well I guess, I don't know _ if it's in the form of a sub point or if it's just a direction to staff to work with the developer and if there is an appropriate means by which some green space can be created but reserved for future parking in this site, that that be undertaken. I don't know if I should put that as a — recommendation. Aanenson: Yeah. Nutting: So add recommendation number 21 directing that staff work with the developer to review that. Conrad: I second. Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves Site Plan #95-5 for a 27,750 square foot office/warehouse building on Lot 4, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition, subject to the following conditions: 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 1. Indicate location of PIV (Post Indicator Valve). 2. The Fire Department fire sprinkler connection shall be on the south side of the building. 3. The applicant incorporate an additional curb cut in the front side of the building for all — visitor parking area off of Commerce Drive at the time of future expansion. 4. The site plan shall be revised to be compatible with or similar to the grading and — drainage plan with regards to parking stalls, islands, and driveway access points. 5. Staff suggests increasing the pavement section for the loading dock to a minimum of 12 — inches of modified Class V and 4 inches of bituminous, or an alternative based on recommendations contained in a soil report prepared by a soil engineer. 6. All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Design Detail (Plate No. 5207 - attached). — 7. No building permits or grading may commence on the site until after the final plat has been approved and recorded and the developer of Chanhassen Business Center had _ executed the development contract. 8. Temporary access to the site prior to the street being constructed may be permitted as — long as the City Fire Marshal's conditions and concerns are fully met. 9. The applicant shall pay full park fees as specified by city ordinance. There are no trail — fees required of this project. 10. The applicant shall revise the parking lot plans to provide a minimum of 49 parking — spaces. 11. Revise the landscaping plan to incorporate an overstory tree from the "Approved Tree — List" specified as suitable for boulevard and parking lots within each of the parking lot peninsulas and at the corners of the parking lot. Staff also recommends that two more hackberries be planted in the northeast corner of the site maintaining the spacing — established by the four hackberries already shown. In addition, these trees shall be located between the gas easement and drainage and utility easement located to the north of the building. — 12. A separate permit will be required for signage. — 38 — Planning Commission Meeting -April 5, 1995 13. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. 14. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. 15. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. 16. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 17. All free standing signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eight (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. 18. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. All signs require a separate permit. _ 19. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 20. Staff and the applicant will work together regarding the parking lot requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADOPT BY-LAWS AND ELECT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Mancino: We were going to adopt the By-laws and elect a Chair and a Vice Chair. I would move that we wait to do that until we have a full, everyone's here on the Planning Commission. We'll do that with all of us here. So let's all try to make sure that we're all here next time and maybe give a call to Jeff and make sure that he'll be here so we can get that kind of settled and go on with things. I would appreciate that. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL UPDATE. Aanenson: As you recall, the Planning Commission approved a site plan for the addition of 36 rooms at the Country Suites Hotel. As a part of that though, the Animal Fair building was to be a restaurant. Plans have changed a little bit. What we are trying to do with that, as you — recall, trying to match the two architectures. They spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to match that frontier architecture with the existing Country Suites. What they've done, they've separated the two really out. I think what they're looking at now is possibly this — being, where the Animal Fair building is, being a conference center more instead of a restaurant. It doesn't seem like the demand is there and what they're needing now is for a conference, or meeting rooms in conjunction with the hotel. Also that is now broken away. — It's not a part of this project. The hotel wants to go forward without the rest of the development. What my concern was how do we still make that linkage because we still want that access, pedestrian access between the two. Maybe I can lay out for you the site plan that — was originally approved for this project. Mancino: Kate, can you kind of tell us. What are you asking us to do? — Aanenson: I just wanted to let you know, I'm administratively approving this. I just wanted to let you know what it's going to look like. Originally what the hotel looked like, we had — this walkway in the front. We tried to create that pedestrian linkage. Remember we had the courtyard in between the hotel and then a restaurant. We had another courtyard walking _ through. So what we're trying to do again is create the pedestrian linkage going between the two and then architecturally tie the two together so there's brick and then the arches and then there's the widow walk. Now as I indicated, the hotel's ready to go forward and the rest of _ the picture is still a question mark. Like I said, we believe it will be meeting rooms but the hotel wants to go forward and it's ready to pull building permits. It had been approved through City Council. The final site plan. My concern was that it was supposed to be brick. — We still wanted to see brick on the lower level and we still want to have the walkway. They have submitted plans, and if you want to look at those, I could show those to you but what we still have is the walkway. We just took off the, they took off the arch here so this — matches the existing motel and then a widow's walk, which is a little contrived maybe anyway trying to tie those two in. But we can walk, there's a little courtyard here that has all the landscaping inside. And there will be another courtyard here when this ties in to the — meeting rooms. So what's different is the arched windows. This is not there but brick goes up the whole first story, consistent with what's over here. And this will be a walkway. Interior walkway so you can still walk into the hotel and over to the rest of the Frontier — Center. So when this comes in, the meeting rooms, that's when we'll kind of make our transition and blend the two. So I just wanted to let you know that I've administratively approved this, believing it's pretty consistent with what we wanted. The pedestrian linkage — 40 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 and when this comes back, if it's substantially different, then I'll let you take a look at it and see how that matches. But they will be pulling permits here probably in the next week or so for construction. Mancino: Is it feasible that if any of us would like to come in and see a little more detail, we could... Aanenson: Certainly, and I have the plans here too if you have some more specific questions about it. There will be another corridor in the back to tie into that too. Interior corridor to tie into the meeting rooms but this is more intended to be, really if people want to cut through without kind of room sort of thing...but yeah, if anybody would like to see the plans, certainly. Mancino: Either do that now or. Aanenson: Sure. Or you can make an appointment. But I did want to let you know that it's going to be underway and it's going to look different than what you saw so I wanted to let you know that so your expectations were met. That we wanted to get the brick to match the hotel but it's going to look a little bit different than what you originally approved. Mancino: And we'd like a restaurant. For downtown Chanhassen. _ Aanenson: Well yeah, I think we're going to see a couple other restaurants. We're working on a couple other sites that the city owns so I think that they feel that maybe that, the meeting rooms more meet their needs for conferencing. There isn't that availability in downtown. And for the people that are renting there and there are other needs that have been met with restaurants and pending restaurants that we're aware of. Mancino: Okay. Is there anyone who would like to see more detailed plans? Okay. Then I'd just make a suggestion that if anybody wants to individually can make an appointment with you. Thank you. Any other old business? Aanenson: No. Mancino: Okay, new business? Would the staff report have to do with old business? Aanenson: Sure, I can do a City Council update too. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Aanenson: Because we had just a work session meeting last time, I'm not sure, we had Council meetings that were kind of conflicting in the same week. I'm not sure that we're all current on what happened on the 13th so I'll bring you up to date on the last two City — Council meetings. In case you're not aware, the bid was approved for the pedestrian bridge. Then the rezoning for the Lake Ann Highlands, for the 92 twin homes was approved. The street will not go through. And there will be a landscaping berm, significant landscaping — berm between the two. And they approved a site plan variance for the radio station and that transmitter building. In addition they approved the preliminary plat for Pointe Lake Lucy, and that's been reduced to 19 single family homes. When you looked at it, there was 20 and the applicant came back and reduced one more. I think that's going to be a good project. And then on the 27th, there wasn't a, for rezoning or PUD amendment, you need 4/5 and there was only 3 Council members there so the two rezoning actions for the townhome — project, reallocating the density on the Oaks. So that was tabled. And also the Chan Business Center, which obviously needs to get approved in order for these projects to go _ forward so those were also tabled and they'll be rescheduled for, on the 10th. The Holly Lane, the Julie Sprau, Ravenswoods, that was approved. A lot split. And the site plan review for the Century Bank was also approved. We did put into your packet the St. Croix, _ Marine on the St. Croix ordinance and probably in the next Planning Commission packet I'll show you. We did get back from the Met Council a study that they've given to all communities showing where we rank as far as affordable housing and some of their goals that — they'll be looking at so we'll be preparing for you a summary of that document and show you where we rank in some of their recommendations. It's a large document so we're going to try to summarize it for you and give you some of the findings and the directions that they're — going. And we're kind of tied into a plat that we've got coming for, on the 19th, that's requesting a change from an industrial. Excuse me, on May 3rd. They're requesting change from an industrial to a residential and it raises, we believe some philosophical issues. — Mancino: Where? Aanenson: It's south of Trotters. It was guided for industrial and you know, taking away industrial stock and then getting another traditional subdivision, what's the benefit. We've already got quite a bit in that market section already. Unless we're getting something — different, so we're going to raise some of those issues for your input. It's kind of a big philosophical issue so. Mancino: I'd just like to make a comment on the Marine on the St. Croix. That was something I had heard on NPR and asked to get the ordinance. And I think the main concept there that I was interested in was how clustering is done and how they had passed an — 42 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 ordinance trying to encourage more clustering of homes and keeping part of the property for natural habitat, open space, green areas, etc. It certainly is done in a much, I mean it's much more of a rural area. It doesn't have the same feel as Chanhassen but the concept is there and it legitimizes the concept, I think of clustering and to some extent PUD. It brings in some other things that you can do. Aanenson: It's a true PUD. Mancino: Yeah. And it shows the benefits of it. Couple of things. Can you tell us, we have another vacant seat. Are there any applications? When they're due by? When do we interview? Aanenson: I'll have to find out. The Council passed a new kind of a policy for themselves of how they're going to do that. Whether you're going to interview first or whether they'll just interview and I'm sorry. I can't remember exactly how that laid out. I'll be happy to put that in the next packet. I believe it closes next week. If not this Friday, then next week. We do have one in. I believe we may have 2 other people that may be re-applying but we do have one in. A good candidate. _ Mancino: Okay. And they're thinking of changing the process so that they just interview for candidates? _ Aanenson: Yeah, I'm not sure what that was. I can't remember but I will be happy to put that in and let you know. What the deadline is and when we'll be getting somebody else but it has been advertised. Mancino: Yes, I've seen it. I guess that's it. Any other questions? Conrad: Madam Chairman, relating to, and I'm not sure which item we're on. But between the new people and By-laws... What I'd like to have, I think we're going to have, this interviewing for the last Planning Commission person probably will be a while. Until we get them on. But I would like to have staff, with our two new members, give a little bit of an overview of what we do. It will take you a year to figure this thing out. I just guarantee you. Nutting: Maybe more. Conrad: Maybe, yeah. Maybe more. And what I'd like to have staff do is kind of, real briefly. I don't want this to be a long deal but maybe a 20 minute session when it seems appropriate. I guess I'm going to put that in there. When it seems appropriate. Probably as 43 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 soon as we can but based on other work loads. But really would like staff to talk to us about the role of the Planning Commission and the role of the commissioners. How we interact — with the planning staff and the City Council. From their perspective. I just really would like Kate. Maybe this is you Kate doing this. Yeah. Mancino: You mean some formal training? Conrad: I want everybody to know, not only our role but our leverage points. You know, a — lot of stuff you can't impact at all but I'd like staff to tell you how you can impact. How you can influence and there's 3 or 4 things. Tabling is a great tool. There's some things that I'd _ like staff to talk to us about that. I'd also like staff to interview each member of the City Council and get one point that they would like us to improve from each member of the City Council. I don't want a group deal. I want one point from each Council member. Mancino: I've also asked for a meeting. Nutting: Yeah, I was going to say, I'd like to see a meeting so we can more clearly understand direction but I think your point is..perhaps prior to that meeting, let's get Ladd's point. Aanenson: Yeah. I think their work sessions are booked all the way through May so, or June. Mancino: I know it's going to be brought up Monday night at the City Council. ` Conrad: I would like Kate to tell us her most significant criticism of, her one pet peeve with how we interrelate with the staff. And then I'd like to have staff talk to us about really the procedures that are followed by most communities as to how a meeting is run. It doesn't — mean we have to follow it but I just want to, I'd like staff to say the major metro communities, Eden Prairie. This is how their meetings are orchestrated and run. Mancino: Were you talking about tone of the meeting? What are you talking about when you say that? Conrad: About administratively how a subject is handled and how motions are made and, I don't believe we do it the way everybody else does it, from what I'm being told. And again, that doesn't mean that we have to change. I just want us to know how some other. When I — watch cable TV and I see these other communities doing. Mancino: You watch it? — 44 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 Conrad: I do. Only for a few minutes. I can't stand it too long but I'll watch the City of Victoria. They'll have a meeting, a Planning Commission meeting and they'll take all the input and they'll continue the meeting to the next week. You know they do some things that, if I were a citizen I'd go wild. It's like, I got to come back but again, I'd just like staff to tell us what the typical way of handling a meeting is. And so we know the typical. And again, — that doesn't mean we have to do it. It just means we have a choice in running. I think that's it. Does that make sense? — Mancino: Yeah. I guess I'd almost have to see it on a videotape to say that's a typical meeting. — Conrad: Let me tell you one thing that I believe is different. Mancino: In all the 12 years you've been on the commission. Conrad: In all the 12 years. See, a lot of what we do, you know I sort of, well. I've been part of so maybe I've set the direction going the wrong way. But I think in many — communities they will put a motion out on the floor immediately and then you react to that motion. See we don't. Then you discuss the motion. I just want to know if that works for us. If that's the way. We mold decisions here. We kind of interact and probably sort of — illegally do some things. And I think we typically come up with some pretty good things. Yet on the other hand, if I were the City Council, I might be confused on how we do some of our things. I'm not sure that the City Council understands how we come to conclusions. So _ therefore, this is my little attempt to see if there's a better way. — Mancino: And isn't our process very much like the City Council's process? It is a replication of how the City Council does things because every City Council meeting that I've gone to, it's the same thing. Which, I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just saying that they would probably understand it because that's the way they do it. But can we do something different? Sure. — Conrad: Well they're critical of some stuff. They got rid of two people. I guess I'm just sort of, one, I'm trying to hear what their criticisms are. — Mancino: But overall it's you want to know why. Conrad: I don't need to talk to them directly. I really don't need to find out a report card. I — personally don't need to get into some of that. But I do, I think it's a good opportunity to make sure we hear some criticisms as to how we can help or how we hurt what they do. And I'm not sure I really want a meeting with them to do that. I think if Kate interviews them, — 45 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 and I don't care if it's personally in a room or if it's at their meeting, I would like individual comments coming back. Not a consensus. It's a recommendation. I would like the Planning — Commission to do this. Do it this way. Nutting: Now City Council hasn't asked you to get the same from us? — Mancino: Oh, we have to approve the Minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March I, 1995 as presented. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. — Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director — Prepared by Nann Opheim 46 —