Loading...
08-17-94 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMi.,..cci.,IN WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1994, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE 5:30 to 7:15 p.m. Sign Ordinance Work Session CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Carver County Public Works for a proposed project for the reconstruction of County Road 17 from the existing four lanes south of Lyman Boulevard (Sections 14 and 23, T 116N, R 23W). Upgrading of two lanes to four lanes within the existing right-of-way will impact 1.55 acres of wetland. Approximately 3.1 acres of replacement wetland will be created as mitigation. 2. Rezoning of 25.85 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat to subdivide 25.85 acres into 21 single family lots and 3 outlots located in the SW 'A of Section 3. T 116, R 23, north of Hwy. 5 and east of Hwy. 41, Brenden Pond, Gestach and Paulson Construction. 3. Rezone 37.92 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat to subdivide 37.92 acres into 52 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit located at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and proposed Lake Lucy Road extension, 6730 Galpin Boulevard, Ed and Mary Ryan, Shamrock Ridge. 4. Rezoning of 39 acres of property zoned A2 to RSF, preliminary plat to create 50 single family lots and 7 outlots, wetland alteration permit for mitigation of ponding areas, and conditional use permit for alteration of areas within a flood plain on property located north of Twin Cities & Western Railroad tracks west of Bluff Creek and east of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek, Heritage First Addition, Heritage Development Company. 5. Preliminary plat and final plat for Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition creating 2 outlots and Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition platting Outlot B into 3 lots and one outlot, site plan review of a 5,000 square foot building for Perkins Restaurant, a site plan review for a 1,800 square foot building for Taco Bell, located on the corner of Hwy. 5, Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street, Chanhassen Retail Center (Target site), Ryan Companies and RLK Associates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 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 will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. s CITY OF iiiitor 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 DATE: August 11, 1994 SUBJ: Draft Sign Ordinance Please bring your copy of the draft Sign Ordinance to Wednesday night's meeting. C I TY 0 F P.C. DATE: 8-17-94 \ !,s C.C. DATE: 9-12-94 r. CHANHASSZN CASE: 92-5 WAP BY: Desotelle:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Wetland Conservation Act/Chanhassen Wetland Alteration Permit for the reconstruction and widening of approximately 7,500 linear feet of County Road 17 between Trunk Highway 5 and Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18) and Z 400 feet of Lake Drive, east of County Road 17. LOCATION: County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard) between Trunk Highway 5 and VLyman Boulevard. APPLICANT : Carver County a- PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential, IOP Industrial Office Park, and Open Space ACREAGE: County Road 17 Reconstruction (1.55 acres of wetland fill) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: The land within and around the proposed project area is mostly residential subdivisions with some areas of wetlands, lakes, and other open spaces such as Lake Susan Park. Light industrial Qdevelopment is common to the north of the proposed project. Downtown Chanhassen is within one mile north of the project area. W WAP for County Road 17 Project August 17, 1994 Page 2 BACKGROUND On May 18 1992, a wetland alteration permit application was presented to the City Council for approval for the reconstruction of County Road 17 near Lake Drive East. At that time, the road project was denied by council. It appears that some additional research was needed as to why the project should occur. Since the project was denied, the wetland alteration permit was tabled in case the project came back in the future with additional information. The City and the County have now entered a cooperative agreement to reconstruct County Road 17 because the road does not currently meet State Standards. The project has been expanded from the original proposal in order to bring the roadway up to these standards. The project now extends from Lake Drive East to Lyman Boulevard. Development in the area has increased the volume of vehicles,bicycles, and pedestrians utilizing the roadway. The proposed improvements will include additional traffic lanes and a separate path for bicycles and pedestrians which will result in a safer environment for all roadway users. ANALYSIS Wetlands Impacted As a result of the roadway reconstruction and expansion, three out of four bordering wetlands will be partially impacted (see figure 1). The wetlands impacted are all considered ag/urban except for Wetland D which was characterized as utilized. Wetland A, the largest wetland, will receive approximately 1.0 acre of wetland fill. Wetland B will not be impacted. Wetland C which is adjacent to Riley Creek will receive approximately 0.15 acre of wetland fill. Wetland D is a man-made wetland that was created for the purpose of wetland replacement as a result of the Lake Drive East construction in 1990. 4.5 acres were required for replacement and 4.9 acres were created. The grading plan for this wetland indicates that the created wetland was to stay outside of the County Road 17 right-of-way. However, at the time of construction the area was graded up to the existing toe of slope instead of the right-of-way limit creating the additional 0.4 acre of wetland. Wetland Replacement The applicant has demonstrated that the project cannot avoid direct impact to the wetlands involved. The impacts to the wetlands have been minimized to the extent possible and the wetlands will be mitigated by replacement and restoration of the functions and values associated with the existing wetlands. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the City's Wetland Ordinance (CWO) requires a wetland replacement ratio of 2:1 or a wetland replacement ratio of 1:1 in addition to a wetland restoration ratio of 1:1 if there are no exemptions to the proposed project. Staff has determined WAP for County Road 17 Project August 17, 1994 Page 3 that there are no exemptions for filling these wetlands, and therefore, 3.1 acres of wetland mitigation is required. Staff recommends that 1.55 acres be replaced in upland to provide the no net loss policy with the additional mitigation acreage of 1.55 acres to be used as restoration to the existing Wetland A. Wetland A has been drained by a drainage ditch which runs through the wetland and eventually discharges into Lake Susan. The applicant has agreed to explore a restoration design concept in conjunction with the replacement plan. Staff thinks that this will enhance the area by maintaining land diversity (upland and lowland) and restoring a degraded wetland. If additional acreage is gained through the restoration of the wetland, the County and the City can bank the wetland acres for future wetland impacts. The wetland banking units acquired by the County and the City should be determined by the cooperative agreement between the City and the County on the County Road 17 project. The design for the wetland mitigation should be engineered to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community and in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The City requires the hydrologic calculations and construction specifications for the wetland replacement and restoration before the project is approved. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of wetland alteration permit #92-5 subject to the following conditions: 1. The replacement plan includes restoration to the existing Wetland A. 2. The design and construction specifications must be approved by the City before the project commences. 3. A wetland bank be established for the City and the County if the wetland restoration creates more than the required mitigation. 4. According to the WCA, the project cannot commence until 30 days after the City's decision has been distributed to the parties notified of the application. 5. The County will monitor the replacement and restoration for a period of five years as required by the WCA. Monitoring forms will be completed and submitted to the City the end of each growing season with descriptions of the site vegetation, wetland types, and ground photos." WAP for County Road 17 Project August 17, 1994 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. WCA notification 2. Figure 1 WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT EQB MONITOR NOTICE for Project Application City of Chanhassen 7/11/94 Local Government Unit Date Diane Desotelle 612-937-1900 LGU Official Area Code, Telephone 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Address ( Street, Box Number, Etc.) Chanhassen MN 55317 City State Zip Code PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant Name: Carver County Public Works Project Location: T 116N R 23W Sec 14 and 23 1/4 1/4 1/4 County: Carver Watershed name: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Description of Activity: Reconstruction of County Road 17 from the existing four lane south of Lyman Boulevard. Upgrading two lane to four lane within existing RON will impact 1.55 acres of wetland. Approximately 3.1 acres of replacement wetland will be created as mitigation. A copy of the complete application can be viewed at the LGU office listed above. Persons interested in receiving mailed notice of each project within the jurisdiction of the above mentioned LGU can be put on a mailing list by contacting the LGU at the address listed above. Please send comments on this project to the LGU listed above. Please nott.that the comment period deadline is August 17, 1994 )7_),'C<< 1Y- /44-- Authorized ,damAuthorized LGU Official Dam :Invite comments note comments a w re y s sent send to: EQB Monitor Room 300, Centennial Office Bldg. 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 phone: (612) 296-8253 FAX: (612) 296-3698 (publication dares are every other Monday with one week lead time) a:egbnota.for(BWSR/JJ 1020/93) j:`enevias elands\wacgbmulQ C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 8/17/94 \\I IJ CIIAIIA! E1I CC DATE: 9/12/94 CASE #: 94-10 SUB 94-5 REZ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 25.85 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 25.85 Acres into 21 single family lots and three Z outlots, Brenden Pond Q LOCATION: Southwest 1/4 of Section 3, T116, R23, north of Hwy. 5, east of Hwy. 41, and Vsouth of Minnetonka Middle School West. a. APPLICANT: David Gestach-Leland Paulson a_ DBA: Gestach & Paulson Constr. Q 200 North Chestnut Street Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District ACREAGE: 25.85 acres DENSITY: 1.2 Units per Acre-Gross 1.93 Units per Acre-Net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - OI, Office Institutional, Minnetonka Middle School West S - RR, Rural Residential District E - RR, Rural Residential District QW - RR, Rural Residential District QWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. w PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The majority of the site is being farmed. An Ag/Urban wetland is L. located along the west side of the property and a Natural wetland is located at the southeast corner of the site. Mature trees are concentrated within the southeast corner and easterly edge of the (I) wetland. The site generally slopes from southwest to northeast and from northeast to southwest, with the low points in the center of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density EWASHTA ITS PARK 0 D " 2 8 Q S S 8_ _ 8 8 8 a iia k%? `,� kt • .•- ,/ F. �'"' Illin!r__ til t• $- �I � ' � .. r \�- �•••_ 11 - _,4il --- s:a -. _. . ° ate'; -' ./.f l ♦�. =••:Y �- �•n�' m' ���� LirI3:�1:c r �� , <<4`�7 44- j •�.E•c.V 1�A� i Illi _ �' i Fl_13 7:1;,.-. �..• - _ p. ;"a , ` qL 26.111.1"'"--7---.4p,1-""7->r" yon s I ' •:. !►.': .T..l,' '�� ' l i . O I a--, �Fr'4+'1- T �. . �' .` w<, _, f's 4-L Mir AA • z....._. _tt_____IN cm.,.-7-4,: ..kaii IL, .Ja!if Alai t f\i i LAKE . 11111,A41114 T6 D(C f,ea N git! KAY- tot , $ NTA v y b. RR AO �:1:; u Jec�` R£G/OH'AC -.II �' 1� 1 , I -'1111- 111111111 a. PARK -I---- .;It ¢ -' \ ��� fr 1D F ...�,�o. �. ■ . - LAKE LUCY H� ■ :.!-z:- . RD sin 2. RR - L._. a ygKEs .. . eV U '• ' MEADOW liaj- �� c•'vc � ©� LAKE ANN GREEiy pApK� - �� �_ % RD 1RRSSlrF� • Ellr In 1illR4 I tAKE 1 . i \ '1 : j na"�A�K"° RR• ar • lb- - rwt1. / R12 , i 1 :_ffillk ,,,-- i .. nil Tam V- i . % 1101 # A 1 P4Vi IOP,„ ib = - I ✓TOMO • -� / � W imp - -S1'....4 �r4 PAF ....Me L _-3 re.ig 00 . •. ., , '' RSF'. �` - L..;`:-APAP 4 .- il,NOSIIMIPII sit.: LrMa4 SI VD J '.CA i8: i 2PUD I ./f1�_ '�- 11„ 3� �. N B»0 RSI d•= • .:? i . '• . C o 0 0 vNn f Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 25.85 acres into 21 single family lots. The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RSF, Residential Single Family. The average lot size is 22,547 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.2 units per acre. The site is located north of Hwy. 5, east of Hwy. 41, and south of Minnetonka Middle School West. Access to the subdivision will be provided via an extension of Lake Lucy Road which will connect this subdivision with Highway 41 to the west and Galpin Boulevard to the east (through the Ryan property). A cul-de-sac, Pondview Court, extends north to service all of the proposed lots with the exception of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of Lots 8, 20, and 21. These lots are deficient in frontage. The ordinance requires a minimum of 90 foot frontage. This can be easily corrected by shifting some lines within the plat. There are three outlots shown on the plat. Outlot A is reserved for further subdivision and future development. Outlot B contains a Natural Wetland, and Outlot C is a remnant lot created as a result of the alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The site has a dense concentration of mature trees along the easterly edge of the wetland and northwest of Outlot B. The majority of the trees, northwest of Outlot B will be lost as a result of the extension of Lake Lucy Road. Trees located on proposed Lots 20 and 21 will be removed as a result of grading the site. All those trees must be replaced as required by the landscaping, and tree preservation ordinance. The applicant must submit a landscaping/reforestation plan prior to final plat approval. A preservation easement over the wooded areas will be required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently preserving the trees. In reviewing this plat, staff also had to look at access to the Mancino parcel to the east. While the Mancinos are not ready to develop or subdivide at this time, staff has asked them to give consideration as to how their property will be developed. Staff wanted to ensure that the Mancinos are not land locked. Staff has 3 development scenarios that include the Mancino, Ryan and Gestach properties. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. BACKGROUND Gestach/Paulson has been working with staff to develop this subdivision for a couple of years. The major stumbling block has been the location of Lake Lucy Road. A public hearing was held Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 3 at the City Council's regular meeting on April 12, 1993 concerning the feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard. This project was initially petitioned by two property owners, the Westside Baptist Church and property owned by Gestach/Paulson/Klingelhutz, amassing nearly 36 acres immediately east of Trunk Highway 41. During the process of preparing the feasibility, it became apparent that'the Westside Baptist Church no longer had an interest in this project and had subsequently rescinded their project petition. Since the road needed to cross through the church property in order to serve the Gestach/Paulson/Klingelhutz property, the church's lack of participation for all intents and purposes had temporarily stalled the project. As such, the public hearing was tabled indefinitely. The renewed impetus for the Lake Lucy Road extension is the petition/support of this project by the two immediately affected property owners (Jerome Carlson located adjacent to Trunk Highway 41 and the Gestach/Paulson proposed development located immediately east of the referenced Carlson property). The project consists of the construction of Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41 east approximately 1400 lineal feet as an urban roadway with concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer and trail and the installation of watermain and sanitary sewer. The proposed road alignment for this project has been revised from the two alternative alignments presented in the original feasibility study. The currently proposed alignment would follow more closely with the existing Lake Ann Interceptor easement through the Carlson property and would reduce grading and tree loss impacts from that of the previously presented alignment options. The proposed plat is consistent with the Lake Lucy Road street and utility project. REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family. The area to the east., west and south is zoned Rural Residential and is guided for Residential Low Density. The area to the north of the site is zoned Office Institutional and contains the Minnetonka Middle School West. The 2000 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.93 units per acre and 1.2 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out. This area is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 25.85 acre site into 21 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.2 units per acre gross, and 1.93 units per acre net after removing Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 4 the roads and wetlands. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 22,547 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of Lots 8, 20, and 21. These lots are deficient in frontage. The ordinance requires a minimum of 90 foot frontage. This can be easily corrected by shifting some lines within the plat. There are three outlots shown on the plat. Outlot A is reserved for further subdivision and future development. Outlot B contains a Natural Wetland, and Outlot C is a remnant lot created as a result of the alignment of Lake Lucy Road. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS According to the wetland delineation performed by Westwood, two wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows: West Basin is an ag/urban wetland located along the central portion of the western boundary of the site. About half of the wetland extends off-site to the west; approximately 5.17 acres of wetland is on site. This wetland is DNR protected water, 10-132W. An ordinary high water mark has not been established for this wetland. Southeast Basin is a large natural wetland located in the southeastern corner of the property. The majority of the wetland is off-site with only approximately 2.03 acres on-site. It does not appear that the wetland will be impacted as a result of construction of Lake Lucy Road, however, it is very important that type III erosion control be constructed around the wetland and well maintained during construction. There will be some fairly steep side slopes (3:1) adjacent to the wetland. A potential erosion problem exists; therefore, the side slope should be revegetated as soon as possible after site grading with erosion control blanket. This area will be constructed under the City's improvement project and will be addressed on the construction plans. Regulations The City administers the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), however it does not appear that a wetland replacement plan will be necessary for this project. Staff would like the following information as part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils. In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 5 ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective 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 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. 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-developed and post-developed conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre-developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. Water quality ponds will not be required since this development will connect to the City's construction project. the applicant will be assessed for storm drainage improvements in lieu of SWMP fees. Storm water discharge to the ag/urban wetland will be pretreated in a sedimentation pond to be constructed with the City's project. Detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. Staff believes additional catch basins will be required along Pondview Court. 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 The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash 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 the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. This fee is not applicable since the applicant will be assessed for the Lake Lucy Road storm drainage improvements. Water Quantity Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 6 The SWMP has established an assessment rate 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. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with the SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. An analysis of the SWMP fees will be performed in conjunction with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. DRAINAGE The applicant has petitioned the City to construct Lake Lucy Road. The City authorized preparation of a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). On June 13, 1994, the City Council approved the feasibility study and authorized preparation of constructionplans and specifications for Phase I of the roadway improvements. Phase I will include extending Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41 to the intersection of proposed Pondview Court. The project includes construction of streets, sidewalk, utilities and storm drainage improvements. This development is dependent upon this project in order to develop. Without these improvements the plat is premature. Therefore, preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon City Project No. 92-12 being ordered and bid awarded. This development will be subject to assessment as a result of the City's improvement project. The east side of the development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed which is under the jurisdiction of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. The west side of the development is within the Lake Minnewashta Watershed which is under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. It appears the runoff from the site will drain into the ag/urban wetland. The ag/urban wetland will then drain into the natural wetland. The natural wetland drains to the east through a series of other wetlands before it eventually discharges into Lake Lucy. Since the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed boundaries are being altered both watershed districts and the Board of Water and Soil Resources should be informed of the alterations proposed to the watershed boundaries. The storm water runoff from the front yard areas and street will be conveyed via storm sewers into a sediment basin that the City's improvement project will be constructing prior to discharging into the ag/urban wetland. A sediment basin will be designed with the City's project to hold back sand and silt running off from the proposed development and the Lake Lucy roadway before it enters the ag/urban wetland. Staff believes that a sediment trap is sufficient water quality treatment in this situation; however, the inlet from the sediment trap to the ag/urban Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 7 wetland should be located well away from the outlet that discharges the ag/urban wetland into the natural wetland. This will be modified on the City's construction plans. GRADING The site contains a significant grade variety of elevation changes and vegetation. There are steep slopes in the northwesterly and southerly portion of the site. The proposed plans show extensive grading to develop the site for house pads and streets. A development plan should be prepared or included with the grading plan indicating the type of dwelling to be built on each lot. There are some very steep slopes in the northwest corner of the development that will be re-graded under the proposed plan. Staff recommends that the street be extended to provide future access to the Mancino property at the northeast boundary. This will provide access which can be extended east through the Mancino property in the future. Staff reviewed another potential location for this access road at the southwest corner of the property (Outlot A); however, the slopes leading into the Mancino property here are very steep and resulting road grades would be greater than 10 percent. The extension of Pondview Court appears to be the best alternative since it would eliminate steep road grades and allow some natural resource continuity between the wooded area on Mancino's property and the ravine which extends from the wooded area south to the wetland. The road crossing the ravine would occur on the north end where the ravine begins. We believe this alignment will minimize impact to the surrounding property and still provide a feasible access. EROSION CONTROL The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the natural wetland. The steep slopes may also require some form of terraced erosion control fencing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process. UTILITIES With the construction of Lake Lucy Road, sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended to serve this development. Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide the Mancino parcel with street access and utility service. Whichever option is approved, staff recommends that the applicant be required to extend utilities along with access for future extension into the Mancino parcel. The utility plans are relatively straightforward. Water service may be connected from the existing line at their northerly property line or extension from Lake Lucy Road depending on the road extension. Staff may require the looping of this water line. A detailed analysis of the construction plans will be performed in conjunction with the final plat submittal process. Fire Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 8 hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. All utility construction shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the utilities and street improvements will be required for submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. In conjunction with the final platting process, the applicant will be 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 final plat approval. The city is interested in acquiring land in this area to construct a well. Staff will be working with the applicant in designating a location which blends in with the subdivision. STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road extending from Trunk Highway 41. This segment of roadway will be built under the City's Improvement Project No. 92-12. Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use Plan. It is also part of the City's Municipal State-Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision ordinance, direct driveway access onto a collector street should be restricted or controlled whenever feasible. Due to topographic constraints, staff believes there is no other feasible access point available to these three lots. Staff is comfortable with Lots 1, 2 and 3 having driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff is also recommending that development of Outlot A, depending on the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road, may be required to utilize the interior street (Pondview Court). The extension of Lake Lucy Road east of Pondview Court has not been finalized. The City has prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road to Galpin Boulevard. There are two other parcels of land that are directly impacted by the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The first parcel (Ryan) is located just east of this development. The other parcel (Mancino) is located northeast of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property owners several options for access to the Mancino parcel. Staff has also met with the Ryans and discussed two potential alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact the development potential for the Ryan parcel. There is no clear-cut alignment that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation. The Ryans have submitted a preliminary plat for review. They have utilized the northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and finds numerous problems from a design standpoint that will have to be revised, thus reducing the potential number of lots. Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through the Ryan parcel which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very steep slopes. The resulting impact requires short, steep cul-de-sacs as well as tuck- under type homes versus walkouts overlooking the wetlands. Staff has put together three options that we see feasible for development of these three parcels (Brenden Pond, Mancinos and Ryans). Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 9 Option A - Pros (See Attachment #1) This alignment follows the City's feasibility study which minimizes grading and tree loss adjacent to the wetlands through the Ryan parcel. This alignment also allows for two options to extend the street access to the Mancino's parcel and further develop Outlot A, Brenden Pond from interior street versus Lake Lucy Road. One access would be through the southerly portion of the Gestach development along the ravine, although street grades in this alignment may be in excess of 10% and involve additional tree loss and filling of the ravine. The other option to access Mancinos could be to extend Pondview Court to the northeasterly corner of the Gestach plat for future access. This access is much less severe in grade, involves some tree loss and filling of a portion of the ravine and single-loaded lots. The northerly extension into Mancinos preserves the natural features of the southwest portion of Mancinos. Option A - Cons The Lake Lucy Road alignment is not conducive with the Ryan's proposed plat. This option leaves the Ryan parcel to develop with cul-de-sacs north of Lake Lucy Road which will involve steep grades and tuck-under type homes at the end of the cul-de-sacs. Another scenario would be to delay development of these northerly cul-de-sacs until the Mancinos develop from the north. Access to this area is more conducive from the north in order to situate homes at the top of the ridge. Option B - Pros (See Attachment #2) This alignment is conducive to the Ryan's preliminary plat although the Ryan's preliminary plat is anticipated to be revised due to inadequate intersection spacing along with wetland mitigation measures and storm ponding issues. Option B - Cons This roadway alignment does not follow the City's feasibility study. This alignment will push Lake Lucy Road further north resulting in steep slopes along the north side of Lake Lucy Road and mass grading which will significantly alter the existing terrain. This option will also limit access to the Mancino parcel from the extension of Pondview Court. Option C - Pros (See Attachment #3) This option follows the City's feasibility study, maintains the existing topographic features by minimizing grading and provides development flexibility to the Mancino parcel. Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 10 Option C - Cons This option delays development of the westerly portion of the Ryan's plat until access is provided through Mancino's property. Conclusion Staff has reviewed these options and concluded that Option C should be implemented. This leaves development flexibility to the Mancino parcel and allows both parcels (Brenden Pond and Ryan) to develop. Staff believes it is an appropriate way to develop the westerly one-third of the Ryan development. Due to steep grades, we believe that this site should be accessed from the north to retain its topographic features. If the Mancino parcel was the first to be developed, we would recommend that the Mancinos provide a street access to the south for development of this area due to the steep grades. Similarly, staff has required the Ryans to provide access to the Carlson parcel (south of Jennifer Way) due to the isolated parcel of land (surrounded by wetland). We feel that it is in the best interest of the City and property owners to make a development proposal which utilizes the existing topography. In addition, the Ryan plat needs to go back and be substantially reworked due to intersection spacing, wetland setbacks, wetland mitigation areas and storm ponding issues. The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 80-foot wide right-of-way for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the development. The plans also propose a 60-foot wide right-of-way and construction of the City's standard roadway section for Pondview Court. This typical section will allow for sufficient room for sidewalk if so desired to access Lake Lucy Road to the school immediately north of the development. Street grades range from 0.5% to 7% which is the City's maximum grade allowed. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as part of the final plat submittal. Should access to the Mancino parcel be considered through the north end of Pondview Court, then the road should be extended to the northeast boundary of the plat where a temporary cul-de-sac should be built with a sign and a barricade indicating that this street will be extended in the future. Staff also recommends that if the road is extended to the northeast corner of the plat for future extension, the street name should be modified to either Pondview Lane other than designated as Court. PARK DEDICATION The Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as lying within the park service area of Herman Field Park and the Minnetonka Intermediate School campus. A trail is identified on the comprehensive trail plan, running east/west along the extension of Lake Lucy Road and will be constructed as a part of this future road project. Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 11 The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on August 9, 1994, and recommended the Planning Commission require a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of Pondview Court extending north to the school property be incorporated into the construction plans for Brenden Pond. The applicant is to construct this sidewalk and convey any and all easements required by its alignment to the city. The Park and Recreation Commission also recommended full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. Easements COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 20,518 201.38' 125' 30'/50' 10' Lot 2 21,973 175.57' 153' 30'/50' 10' Lot 3 22,874 164.57' 145' 30'/50' 10' Lot 4 24,636 107.24' 175' 30'/50' 225' corner lot 10' Lot 5 15,261 102.00 155' 30'/50' 10' Lot 6 15,854 91' 185' 30'/50' 10' Lot 7 17,950 95' 230' 30'/50' 10' Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 12 Lot 8 20,893 89.98' 230' 30'/50' 10' Lot 9 20,726 85.75' on curve 210' 30'/50' 10' Lot 10 22,598 80.86' on curve 200' • 30'/50' 10' Lot 11 25,349 80.86' 225' 30'/50' 10' Lot 12 21.966 80.86' 198' 30'/30' 10' Lot 13 22,987 80' 210' 30'/30' 10' Lot 14 19,890 70.94' 150' 30'/30' 10' Lot 15 28,795 62.83' 170' 30'/30' 10' Lot 16 38,403 74.94' 230' 30'/30' 10' Lot 17 27,891 128' 310' 30'/30' 10' Lot 18 26,462 218' 235' 30'/NA 10' Lot 19 23,661 90' 245' 30'/30' 10' Lot 20 22,348 87.87' 225' 30'/30' 10' Lot 21 16,345 86.47 165' 30'/30' 10' Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 13 Outlot A 110,974 Outlot B 161,300 Outlot C 5,207 Wetland in Block 1 244,807 Lake Lucy Rd 71,667 Pondview Court 59,856 TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING By overlapping the grading plan and tree inventory plan, we were able to see the vegetated areas and the amount of tree removal. The site contains significant concentrations of mature trees along the west edge of Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11, of Block 1. Grading will not take place over these concentrations, leaving them intact. The same statement can be made for the trees located on Outlot A. Unfortunately, a large number of trees will be lost due to the extension of Lake Lucy Road. Also, there is another cluster of trees located along the east of Lots 20 and 21. These trees will be lost due to site grading and preparation of the lots for construction. Custom grading on Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11 is required to allow the site to be prepared for the individual house rather than mass grading the site at the beginning of the project. A tree preservation plan will be required. All of the vegetated areas that are being saved shall be preserved by a conservation easement. Staff is also requesting a landscaping plan. 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 plan must identify plant material locations along Lake Lucy Road as well as planting within each front yard. Appropriate financial security will be required. This plan should show the type and size of trees proposed to be planted as well as the location of berms along Lake Lucy Road. The applicant should also show the type and size of trees being removed. A reforestation plan will attempt to replace all those trees being lost due to grading and road extension. The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to develop a reforestation plan to replace the tree removal. Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 14 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: REZONING "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning #94-5 for property zoned RR to RSF for Brenden Pond, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the property. 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #94-10." PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94- 10 for Brenden Pond for 21 single family lots and 3 outlots as shown on the plans dated July 19, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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 unless the city's (BMPH) 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. 2. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. 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. 3. Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11, Block 1, shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 15 4. Building Department conditions: a. Revise Grading and Drainage 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 Drainage 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. 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 final plat conditions of approval. 6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 7. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100-year high water level. All storm water ponds shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes. 8. 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. 9. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from Lake Lucy Road with the exception of lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1. 10. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. b. Pending review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable. c. Radius of cul-de-sacs shall be 45 feet, not 42 feet. Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 16 d. Fire hydrants located 300 feet apart. 11. Park and Recreation conditions: a. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of Pondview Court extending north to the school property shall be incorporated into the construction plans for Brenden Pond. The applicant is to construct this sidewalk and convey any and all easements required by its alignment to the city. b. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 12. The applicant shall revise the plat to provide a minimum lot frontage of 90 feet for Lots 8, 20, and 21, Block 1. 13. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. Water quality fees are to be assessed in conjunction with the Lake Lucy Road improvement project. The water quantity fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 14. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 15. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 16. 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 and compliance of the conditions of approval. 17. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 18. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review. Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 17 19. 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. 20. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 21. 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. 22. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post-developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins/wetlands and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 23. 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 width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 24. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 25. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. 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. 26. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. 27. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City ordering Improvement Project No. 92-12 and awarding a bid for the contract. 28. Should street access to the Mancino parcel be required, the applicant shall provide the right-of-way and street and utilities to the east boundary of the plat. A temporary cul- Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 18 de-sac shall be built with a sign on the barricades indicating that this street will be extended in the future" ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Bill Weckman, Carver County dated August 9, 1994: 2. Letter from Ceil Strauss dated August 8, 1994. 3. Letter from Minnegasco dated August 1, 1994. 4. Memo from Dave Hempel dated August 4, 1994. 5. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 5, 1994, and 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo 6. Memo from Mark Littfin dated July 22, 1994. 7. Preliminary plat dated July 19, 1994. RCot/A r � PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT „ • CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE (612)361-1010 ` / 600 EAST 4TH STREET. BOX 6 FAX(612)361-1025 \ CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 �'N E S°� COUNTY Of CAQVEQ August 9, 1994 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer SUBJ: Brenden Pond, Gestach and Paulson Properties Planning Case: 94-10 SUB and 94-5 REZ We have reviewed the information submitted by your memo dated July 20, 1994 for the Brenden Pond development on TH 41. The proposed development will not impact the County Road system. The development occurring as part of this proposal does not abut the County Road right of way. We will not be submitting any comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper Contains Minimum 10%Post Consumer Waste F:E- aai.. 7i STATE OF iiiCEJ [MC Z -11'la -cvQ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ~s ''' METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO August 8, 1994 Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff Planning Department City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: BRENDEN POND (GESTACH & PAULSON) , UNNAMED WETLAND 10-132W, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY (CITY #94-10 SUB & 94-5 REZ) Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: We have reviewed the site plans dated July, 1994 (received July 22 , 1994) for the above-referenced proposal (SW1/4 , Section 3 , T116N- R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. Public water wetland 10-132W, is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross-section of protected waters or wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of DNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit. No official OHW has been established for wetland 10-132W. Please contact this office if there is any question about whether proposed activities will be within protected water wetland 10-132W and we can make arrangements to estimate or officially determine, if necessary, the OHW. 2 . The city of Chanhassen's Surface Water Management Plan shows an outlet for wetland 10-132W (city basin LM-P1. 3) that would go under Highway 41 . Please note that a DNR Protected Waters permit would be required for the outlet (and the city or watershed district should be the applicant) . Also note that this basin is currently part of the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, but would drain into the Minnehaha Creek Watershed if the proposed outlet is installed. Therefore, a change in official watershed district boundaries may be necessary. The city should consult with the involved watershed districts and the Board of Water and Soil Resources on this matter. 3 . It appears that the stormwater is proposed to be routed directly to wetland 10-132W. Stormwater sedimentation/ treatment ponds, or other appropriate stormwater treatment features, should be included in the plan. I understand that AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ms. Al-Jaff August 8 , 1994 Page 2 the city has classified this basin as an urban basin and is considering requirement of primary/sediment treatment versus nutrient treatment. If only sediment treatment is required, a pond/basin should still be used rather than sump catch basins (or other similar facilities) , which are ineffective unless they receive a high level of maintenance. 4 . There should be some type of dedicated 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 DNR, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the City of Chanhassen, the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed (or the Minnehaha Creek Watershed) have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 5 . DNR public water wetland unnamed 10-132W should be labelled as such in future plans or plats and the OHW, if available, should be noted. 6 . There may be wetlands on the site that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by the city in accordance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. 7 . 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 and 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, a DNR appropriations permit is needed. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. Construction activities which disturb five acres of land, or more, are required to apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 612/296-7203) . Ms. Al-Jaff August 8 , 1994 Page 3 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. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have questions. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS/MM/cs c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer Minnehaha Creek WSD, Ellen Sones U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann Carver SWCD, Paul Neumann MinnegaSCO Ft i ,v :i A Division of Arkla,Inc. q. 4 August 1, 1994 Ms . Sharmin Al-Jaff Planner I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: 94 - 10 SUB and 94-5 REZ Brenden Pond Gestach and Paulson Construction Dear Ms . Al-Jaff : Enclosed are the prints for this project with the location of Minnegasco' s natural gas mains indicated in red. Individual services are not shown. Natural gas service is available to this development from the main shown. No addition work is anticipated at this time unless requested by a developer/builder/owner. The developer/builder 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, Richard J. Pi •n, P. E. Senior Design Engineer Engineering Services 612-342-5426 cc: Mary Palkovich Terry Jencks 700 West Linden Avenue P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165 CITY CF 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: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer `e{r DATE: August 4, 1994 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Brenden Pond, File No. 94-17 Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings received "July 19, 1994" and prepared by Engelhardt Associates, Inc. we offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS According to the wetland delineation performed by Westwood two wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows: West Basin is an ag/urban wetland located along the central portion of the western boundary of the site. About half of the wetland extends off-site to the west; approximately 5.17 acres of wetland is on site. This wetland is DNR protected water, 10-132W. An ordinary high water mark has not been established for this wetland. Southeast Basin is a large natural wetland located in the southeaster corner of the property. The majority of the wetland is off-site with only approximately 2.03 acres on-site. It does not appear that the wetland will be impacted as a result of construction of Lake Lucy Road, however, it is very important that type III erosion control be constructed around the wetland and well maintained during construction. There will be some fairly steep side slopes (3:1) adjacent to the wetland. A potential erosion problem exists; therefore, the side slope should be revegetated as soon as possible after site grading with erosion control blanket. This area will be constructed under the City's improvement project and will be addressed on the construction plans. Regulations The City administers the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), however it does not appear that a wetland replacement plan will be necessary for this project. Staff would like the following information as part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 2 In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and 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 for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective 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 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. 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-developed and post-developed conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre-developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. Water quality ponds will not be required since this development will connect to the City's construction project. the applicant will be assessed for storm drainage improvements in lieu of SWMP fees. Storm water discharge to the ag/urban wetland will be pretreated in a sedimentation pond to be constructed with the City's project. Detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. Staff believes additional catch basins will be required along Pond View Court. 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 The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash 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 the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. This fee is not applicable since the applicant will be assessed for the Lake Lucy Road storm drainage improvements. Water Quantity The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city- wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 3 trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with the SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. An analysis of the SWMP fees will be performed in conjunction with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. DRAINAGE The applicant has petitioned the City to construct Lake Lucy Road. The City authorized preparation of a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). On June 13, 1994, the City Council approved the feasibility study and authorized preparation of construction plans and specifications for Phase I of the roadway improvements. Phase I will include extending Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41 to the intersection of proposed Pond View Court. The project includes construction of streets, sidewalk, utilities and storm drainage improvements. This development is dependent upon this project in order to develop. Without these improvements the plat is premature. Therefore, preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon City Project No. 92-12 being ordered and bid awarded. This development will be subject to assessment as a result of the City's improvement project. The east side of the development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed which is under the jurisdiction of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. The west side of the development is within the Lake Minnewashta Watershed which is under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. It appears the runoff from the site will drain into the ag/urban wetland. The ag/urban wetland will then drain into the natural wetland. The natural wetland drains to the east through a series of other wetlands before it eventually discharges into Lake Lucy. Since the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed boundaries are being altered both watershed districts and the Board of Water and Soil Resources should be informed of the alterations proposed to the watershed boundaries. The storm water runoff from the front yard areas and street will be conveyed via storm sewers into a sediment basin that the City's improvement project will be constructing prior to discharging into the ag/urban wetland. A sediment basin will be designed with the City's project to hold back sand and silt running off from the proposed development and the Lake Lucy roadway before it enters the ag/urban wetland. Staff believes that a sediment trap is sufficient water quality treatment in this situation; however, the inlet from the sediment trap to the ag/urban wetland should be located well away from the outlet that discharges the ag/urban wetland into the natural wetland. This will be modified on the City's construction plans. GRADING Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 4 The site contains a significant grade variety of elevation changes and vegetation. There are steep slopes in the northwesterly and southerly portion of the site. The proposed plans show extensive grading to develop the site for house pads and streets. A development plan should be prepared or included with the grading plan indicating the type of dwelling to be built on each lot. There are some very steep slopes in the northwest corner of the development that will be re-graded under the proposed plan. Staff recommends that the street be extended to provide future access to the Mancino property at the northeast boundary. This will provide access which can be extended east through the Mancino property in the future. Staff reviewed another potential location for this access road at the southwest corner of the property (Outlot A); however, the slopes leading into the Mancino property here are very steep and resulting road grades would be greater than 10 percent. The extension of Pond View Court appears to be the best alternative since it would eliminate steep road grades and allow some natural resource continuity between the wooded area on Mancino's property and the ravine which extends from the wooded area south to the wetland. The road crossing the ravine would occur on the north end where the ravine begins. We believe this alignment will minimize impact to the surrounding property and still provide a feasible access. EROSION CONTROL The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the natural wetland. The steep slopes may also require some form of terraced erosion control fencing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process. UTILITIES With the construction of Lake Lucy Road, sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended to serve this development. Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide the Mancino parcel with street access and utility service. Whichever option is approved, staff recommends that the applicant be required to extend utilities along with access for future extension into the Mancino parcel. The utility plans are relatively straightforward. Water service may be connected from the existing line at their northerly property line or extension from Lake Lucy Road depending on the road extension. Staff may require the looping of this water line. A detailed analysis of the construction plans will be performed in conjunction with the final plat submittal process. Fire hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. All utility construction shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the utilities and street improvements will be required for submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. In conjunction with the final platting process, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 5 necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road extending from Trunk Highway 41. This segment of roadway will be built under the City's Improvement Project No. 92-12. Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use Plan. It is also part of the City's Municipal State-Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision ordinance, direct driveway access onto a collector street should be restricted or controlled whenever feasible. Due to topographic constraints, staff believe there is no other feasible access point available to these three lots. Staff is comfortable with Lots 1, 2 and 3 having driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff is also recommending that development of Outlot A, depending on the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road, may be required to utilize the interior street (Pond View Court). The extension of Lake Lucy Road east of Pond View Court has not been finalized. The City has prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road to Galpin Boulevard. There are two other parcels of land that are directly impacted by the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The first parcel (Ryan) is located just east of this development. The other parcel (Mancino) is located northeast of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property owners several options for access to the Mancino parcel. Staff has also met with the Ryans and discussed two potential alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact the development potential for the Ryan parcel. There is no clear-cut alignment that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation. The Ryans have submitted a preliminary plat for review. They have utilized the northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and finds numerous problems from a design standpoint that will have to be revised, thus reducing the potential number of lots. Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through the Ryan parcel which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very steep slopes. The resulting impact requires short, steep cul-de-sacs as well as tuck- under type homes versus walkouts overlooking the wetlands. Staff has put together three options that we see feasible for development of these three parcels(Brenden Pond,Mancinos and Ryans). Option A - Pros (See Attachment #1) This alignment follows the City's feasibility study which minimizes grading and tree loss adjacent to the wetlands through the Ryan parcel. This alignment also allows for two options to extend the street access to the Mancino's parcel and further develop Outlot A, Brenden Pond from interior street versus Lake Lucy Road. One access would be through the southerly portion of the Gestach development along the ravine, although street grades in this alignment may be in excess of 10% and involve additional tree loss and filling of the ravine. The other option to access Mancinos could be to extend Pond View Court to the northeasterly corner of the Gestach plat for future access. This access is much less severe in grade, involves some tree loss and filling of Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 6 a portion of the ravine and single-loaded lots. The northerly extension into Mancinos preserves the natural features of the southwest portion of Mancinos. Option A - Cons The Lake Lucy Road alignment is not conducive with the Ryan's proposed plat. This option leaves the Ryan parcel to develop with cul-de-sacs north of Lake Lucy Road which will involve steep grades and tuck-under type homes at the end of the cul-de-sacs. Another scenario would be to delay development of these northerly cul-de-sacs until the Mancinos develop from the north. Access to this area is more conducive from the north in order to situate homes at the top of the ridge. Option B - Pros (See Attachment #2) This alignment is conducive to the Ryan's preliminary plat although the Ryan's preliminary plat is anticipated to be revised due to inadequate intersection spacing along with wetland mitigation measures and storm ponding issues. Option B - Cons This roadway alignment does not follow the City's feasibility study. This alignment will push Lake Lucy Road further north resulting in steep slopes along the north side of Lake Lucy Road and mass grading which will significantly alter the existing terrain. This option will also limit access to the Mancino parcel from the extension of Pond View Court. Option C - Pros (See Attachment #3) This option follows the City's feasibility study, maintains the existing topographic features by minimizing grading and provides development flexibility to the Mancino parcel Option C - Cons This option delays development of the westerly portion of the Ryan's plat until access is provided through Mancino's property. Conclusion Staff has reviewed these options and concluded that Option C should be implemented. This leaves development flexibility to the Mancino parcel and allows both parcels (Brenden Pond and Ryan) to develop. Staff believes it is an appropriate way to develop the westerly one-third of the Ryan development. Due to steep grades, we believe that this site should be accessed from the north to retain its topographic features. If the Mancino parcel was the first to be developed, we would recommend that the Mancinos provide a street access to the south for development of this area due to the steep grades. Similarly, staff has required the Ryans to provide access to the Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 7 Carlson parcel (south of Jennifer Way) due to the isolated parcel of land(surrounded by wetland). We feel that it is in the best interest of the City and property owners to make a development proposal which utilizes the existing topography. In addition, the Ryan plat needs to go back and be substantially reworked due to intersection spacing, wetland setbacks, wetland mitigation areas and storm ponding issues. • The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 80-foot wide right-of-way for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the development. The plans also propose a 60-foot wide right-of-way and construction of the City's standard roadway section for Pond View Court. This typical section will allow for sufficient room for sidewalk if so desired to access Lake Lucy Road to the school immediately north of the development. Street grades range from 0.5% to 7% which is the City's maximum grade allowed. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as part of the final plat submittal. Should access to the Mancino parcel be considered through the north end of Pond View Court,then the road should be extended to the northeast boundary of the plat where a temporary cul-de-sac should be built with a sign and a barricade indicating that this street will be extended in the future. Staff also recommends that if the road is extended to the northeast corner of the plat for future extension, the street name should be modified to either Pond View Lane other than designated as Court. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. Water quality fees are to be assessed in conjunction with the Lake Lucy Road improvement project. The water quantity fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 2. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 3. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 4. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The minimum easement width should be 20 feet. 5. 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 and compliance of the conditions of approval. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 8 6. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 7. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review. 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. 9. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 10. 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. 11. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post-developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins/wetlands and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 13. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 14. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile system in accordance with the construction plans. 15. 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 width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 16. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 9 17. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. 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. 18. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. 19. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City ordering Improvement Project No. 92-12 and awarding a bid for the contract. 20. Should street access to the Mancino parcel be required, the applicant shall provide the right-of-way and street and utilities to the east boundary of the plat. A temporary cul-de- sac shall be built with a sign on the barricades indicating that this street will be extended in the future. ktm Attachments: 1. Option A. 2. Option B. 3. Option C. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g:engldianelplanning\brenden.pc \ \ L.h p1 re ,> do 7, o 3"g� e 0. h pc a 27.472 liF 1 Iil 14: f — €y0Y �` 1 f itillei J. 71.118.1: �` 1 f �� ly1 E _ % f r Ale is•n.a •' , , , ,f i F ,.., 1 � I -lc. „ It 1 ?I t { i. �> cE ,., x li E - _ fj�7 c t 3 r `r n, a CALp \ wN &L b Vis► � i 11,11111111". i . v '''''..----%-.'...''-''''"......„.........: CO. R0. 117 lr________ 11 r XI 3Z OIm t i E II N.\ k t CI XI I f� `n s 111, ., Vit„ /- ;o NQ a 4414 i i ft I- PT. 2 M.13 _ 1 tt A \ 1 , 441illC ;y \ 1 i $Y % of i ,� i k I Ar' ►c.• t..a i, % . Nr i • ,►ham \ 'x %%N. `N� 1 IIIII 1.:` 4-$rj• ,___ ..,I li - '-'-' ..-- ,s,k.,,, '. I, f\ r. -�' 1. . - A ,i5S r=$g • yam` if 1 • ,.. . (ft,.............:,......,.4:•..:.,), ^ 'I CO. RD. 117 7D > X > i f•1 v ,— c N>., i N. n . li . � P 1 el --",-....s. . ....., --*---..................., 6.1 1 Fr t ---............ ;;;I: .. • 4 1111111110.,, 41 119.1t -. 4 INes 13 - 11110.111.37: II• 7111- ;",;': % giAW LiV N x % % % 1 11 il il 1 1 1 / \ ‘1/4 ': . -....- / \ .....)...... -, \ /1).1\Y" ...0.. -1 ............„. \ : \ , ,, ,,,,,, „..,......F : ,.... .. ,,,, I / :.,..,i ",,, , ; . :, • ., • . ... .,. . , .E. i, . . .. ,. . ., ,..„.....,.. ,,......-, ,•T. . . x . -•. . . . , •4; iit ."'" ••• .'...' I : .54! ' -\ ,!"- ' 111111P. ' ,., •-........______ --'.----:-----.."'-'1"---------------='"-----------.._ : CO. f- - M > 0 X GI f"" N., C I i!-() - \ ' ...,1 .. 1 •.-- n -:i ! 1 n XIOXISX -a5111".. La i 1 tel l' • ' - • 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 II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: 08/05/94 SUBJECT: 94-10 SUB & 94-5 REZ (Brenden Pond, Gestach & Paulson) I was asked to review the plans for the proposed Brenden Pond Subdivision stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; JUL 19, 1994; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " 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. Recommendations: 1 . Revise Grading and Drainage 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 Drainage 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 g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\M enden.sal CITY OF C IIANIIAssEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN P UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 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. FTLo or RIA Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout. This includes dwellings with tine basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approamately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambkr. 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. SE Designates Sptit Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry 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. • SE SEWO WO =S3 Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are 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. es t 4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 v. MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: July 22, 1994 SUBJ: Brendan Pond - Gestach and Paulson Construction Planning Case 94-10 Sub and 94-5 REZ I have reviewed the following single family residential project and have the following requirements: 1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 2. Pending review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable. 3. Radius of cul-de-sacs shall be 45 feet, not 42 feet. 4. Proposed street name is acceptable. g:\safetynMbrenpood.ptr CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION David Gestach - Leland Paulson David Gestach - Leland Paulson APPLICANT: DBA : Gestach & Paulson nonstr . OWNER:DBA : Gestach & Paulson Constr . ADDRESS: 200 N Chestnut Street ADDRESS: 200 N Chestnut Street Chaska, M 55318 Chaska, 'MN 55318 TELEPHONE (Day time) 448-3332 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading-Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. == Rezoning $500. 00 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review N. Notification Signs $1 50 . 00 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR)WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. X Subdivision $400 . 00 TOTAL FEE $ 1 ,365 . 00 $15 x 21 $315 .00 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,.;te appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Brendon Pond LOCATION sw 1 /4 Section 3 , Township 116 , Range 23 LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attached PRESENT ZONING RR REQUESTED ZONING RFS PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION LDR 1 .2 - 4 . 0 units per acre . REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Same as present REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To permit_a. sirgl e family stihdivi si nn 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 th riginal document returned to City Hall Records. _.----- --" L.*: - ) 77/19// g Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner [, Gam[ f / Date Application Received on 7(t UiFee Paid I �j 62 - 03 Receipt No. S n 13 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. EXHIBIT A / Parcel A _ . That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter or . Section 4 , Tovnchip 116 , .Range 23 , Ca ;ver County , Minnesota , descr) DA4 a5 fellows : ` Commencing at the northeast corner of said .Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter ; thence South 01 degreel " 03 minutes OS seconds East , assumed bearing , along the , • east line of said $ortheist ' Ouarter of the Southeast • Quarter a distance of 524 . 15 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described ; thence North 89 degrees 01 minutes 06 seconds West , a distance of 377 . 21 feet to a line hereinafter referred to as line A; thence southwesterly along said Line A a distance of 896 . 18 ' feet to the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter ; thence easterly along said loath line . to the southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter ; thence northerly along said east line to the point of beginning * . Line A is d 'scribed as folloes : . . Beginning at a point on the south line of said northeast • Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 685 . 37 feet „ westerly from the southeast corner of said Northeast, • • Quarter of Vie Southeast Quarter ; thence northeasterly , a distance of 2064 , 94 feet , to a point an the east line - of said Soutgheast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant, 587 ,25 feet northerly from the Southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and said line there ter*itlating. Subject to a 60 foot permanent easement for street and utility . purposes over anct across the above described parcel . The center ' fine of 3.a1d 041/pent is described as follows : Commencing at the southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter . of the Southeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 116 , . Range 23 , Carver County . Minnesota ; thence North 01 . degrees 03 ealnutes OS seconds West , assured bearing , • along the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 80 .00 feet to the point of beginning of the center line to be , described; thence northwesterly a distance of 101 ,54 feet along a . . nontangentlel curve concave to the northeast , having a radius of 292 .08 feet and a central. angle of 21 degrees . OS minutes 46 seconds , the chord of said curve having a bearing of North 45 degrees 43 minutes 12 seconds West ; , - • thence North 35 degrees 10 minutes 24 seconds West • tangent to last curve a distance of 122 . 20 feet ; thence • northwesterly a distance of 237 . 96 feet along a tangential • • curve concave to the southwest , having a radius of 381 . 13 „ feet and a central angle of 35 degrees 46 minutes 22 . seconds ; thence North 70 degrees 56 minutes 46 seconds West a distance of 190.00 feet and said center line there terminating . ,. 1 /----- x ri • A I • ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC ►�G;�'Zs: 11-`�_�i ��t�A • ••• HEARING 0.. 77g) NE! - • -. =1• ra PLANNING COMMISSION .90 'r '" f'iTIZ`t_ '-•17 MEETING , Wednesday, AUGUST 17, 1994 ' Ayr. j at 7:30 p.m. ` v in is City Hall Council Chambers — f1 690 Coulter Drive '� RR L Project: Brenden Pond -- 4., Developer: Gestach and Paulson !rrit.,_ Construction `� A Location: North of Hwy. 5 and east of /AP Hwy. 41 ,-/c\ Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing the rezoning of 25.85 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat to subdivide 25.85 acres into 21 single family lots and 3 outlots located in the SW 'A of Section 3, T 116, R 23, north of Hwy. 5 and east of Hwy. 41, Brenden Pond, Gestach and Paulson Construction. 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 C:.ty 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 August 3, 1994. The Park and Recreation Commissio will review this item on Tuesday, August 9 , 1994 at 7 : 30 p . r Jerome & Linda Carlson Sam and Nancy Mancino Edward & Mary Ryan 6950 Galpin Blvd. 6620 Galpin Blvd. 6730 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Daniel & Linda Murphy Minnetonka School Dist. 276 6651 Hazeltine Blvd. 261 School Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 CITY OF PC DATE. August 17, 1994 —� ClIANIIASSE , y P CC DATE: September 12, 1994 3 CASE # 94-7 SUB, 94-3 REZ, - . STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 37.92 acres of property from Rural Residential, RR, to Single Family Residential, RSF, preliminary plat approval to subdivide 37.92 acres I. -• into 50 single-family lots, 1 outlot and 6.61 acres of right-of-way, and a wetland alteration permit to fill wetlands located on site. LOCATION: West side of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) at the intersection of Lake V Lucy Road - a portion of the SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 116 North, Range 23 West. Q.. APPLICANT: Ed and Mary Ryan Charles W. Plowe Consulting Engineer Q 6730 Galpin Boulevard 9180 Lexington Avenue NE Excelsior, MN 55331 Circle Pines, MN 55014 (612) 943-1410 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential ACREAGE: 37.92 Acres DENSITY: gross: 1.37 units per acre net: 1.97 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RR, single-family homes S - RR, single-family home E - RR, Galpin Blvd. and single-family homes W - RR, vacant 1.1 WATER AND SEWER: Not available. Pending Lake Lucy Road extension approval. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is partially cultivated for hay. There are severe slopes throughout the site with elevation changes from 1046 feet to 980 feet, a natural wetland in the L. southwest corner of the development and two ag/urban wetlands along the eastern edge of the Cl) development. The majority of the site is open field, however, there are concentrations of trees to the north and east of the natural wetland, within the wetland, along the west and north boundary of the site, and around the existing homestead. The Lake Lucy Road extension is proposed through the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range - 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) 3 AMSWE ,.,,,H M91SNTA FLTS AIRM gg g § § ? E 8, D. § t 0 i ? +moi .r• ••� r f j,�2� _ ._ I __ I .7,..:,4, 4,7., , ,, .,..,„:,.....17%.,..7. mr-rsz 1,Ij''~~ ` lig .,04:t.t• it iAx��y-r T.'� I� a aII PA7//eLio* ♦ .,:Q1d'ly!Ii+y'i���T,�''t" "�` :_ I '�C. 0. i �_ T �` 'f4~ '--= :---- , ,, 44 I , diVillt,At. ., •'� ♦rte j�cr • 3,-47-4._ Tamodif,m II LAKEWIIIII0 �� MTV•I K f \�� ® Iniciikis R '1fw A S NTA \ • ���9 I9FiS/ONAL `\ _ ` A� s / PARK - - cr.,, A / 011 ,{••*am 11111 - �� nom �.� LAKf LOCI' iH!�• 7 sr limmill1111111110 . Z / �' � A d c $/ P T ' 444�•'' ' • r €) C\ LAKE AMA' � part' � ® g a Ily 11) iSIC I AKE ANN �' 1 �` iv PARK M kri.I I �_ �Np II I I 111 • r I '.; VAR i lilt „11111111 I :2 .• MAI . .'INPIA I ' P I"W41 ra --:-. , 1 FAMP-11A1 /Q ea: sr�[n �roNC _�• g. �0 0011.,,,.---- i e• © LT—_ -71 \ ow sill. In fir I I J 41: f ....---- /1/) LYMAH MVS (C R IB) I / .1/88VI n � _�' �+ I t -fib ice- AMP. I e7cc—, / �• .2 L. I Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting the rezoning of 37.92 acres of property from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat approval to subdivide 37.92 acres into 50 single-family lots, 1 outlot and 6.61 acres of right-of-way, and a wetland alteration permit to fill wetlands located on site. Rezoning of the property to RSF is consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan designation of the property as Residential - Low Density. The Ryans recently contacted the city about the prospect of developing their property when the City Council was determining the location of Lake Lucy Road. They indicated to staff that they have no immediate plan to develop but wanted to ensure that the location of Lake Lucy Road through their property works the best for development of their property. Since the city does not have a conceptual approval process for a subdivision, they decided to gain preliminary plat approval from the city. This property has some significant issues involved in its development including the Lake Lucy Road extension alignment, severe slopes, grading and drainage concerns, wetlands, tree preservation, and the interrelationship of this plat with the future development of surrounding lands. Staff believes that the subdivision, as proposed, is consistent with the existing land form. The applicants proposed stormwater ponding system is inadequate and must be revised. The steep slopes on the western half of the development make the development of this area problematic at best based on the development proposal due to the severe slopes. From a land use and site design standpoint, this property should be served from the north, eliminating the need for excessive grading of the site. The stormwater ponding on site does not comply with city standards. The proposed alignment for Lake Lucy Road does not meet the city's preferred alignment adjacent to the wetland located in the southwest corner of the site. Meanwhile, Gestach and Paulson have proposed a subdivision to the west of the Ryans. Mancinos, who own the property to the north are also concerned about the impacts of these developments and how their property can be best accessed. Staff asked all these property owners to meet to try and resolve how each development is best designed. Access between and through each parcel is a critical issue and it is the city's job to ensure that they subdivisions do not land lock other parcels. In addition, access needs to be provided in a location that takes in consideration the design of natural features. This has been a very difficult process for staff. We have spent numerous hours exploring design options. All three affected parcels have been willing to work with the city. We have narrowed down three alternatives which best service the area. Staff believes this site warrants further review before receiving preliminary plat approval. Staff is recommending numerous revisions for the subdivision that will enhance environmental protection and make the development better for the community and the future Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 3 residents of this neighborhood. The Lake Lucy Road alignment is such a significant issue and impacts this and adjoining developments to such an extent, that its alignment must be resolved. BACKGROUND This property is currently being used as a farmstead by the applicant. Their home is located in the southeastern portion of the property with the remainder being farmed. Staff has met individually with the applicant's consulting engineer and surveyor to express our concerns about the initial proposed alignment of Lake Lucy Road which was proposed to bisect the site and connect with the property to the west at the northwest corner of the property. At that time, staff advised the engineer that the preferred alignment of Lake Lucy Road was at the bottom of the slope adjacent to the natural wetland. Staff met on August 2, 1994 with the applicant and the abutting property owners in order to determine the appropriate locations for street connections and to discuss the issues involved in this development. Of special concern is the Lake Lucy Road extension location and providing convenient and feasible street access to the property to the north. Since these meetings, the applicant has revised the plat by moving the Lake Lucy Road extension sixty feet south of the northwest corner of the property. WETLANDS According to the wetland delineation performed by Arlig Environmental, Inc. three wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows: Basin 1 is the large wetland located on the western boundary of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the west; approximately 4.7 acres of wetland is on-site. The wetland is classified as a natural wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance. Basin 2 is located along the eastern edge of the property. The wetland is approximately 0.8 acre in size. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. It appears that this basin will be eliminated and converted into a stormwater treatment pond as a result of the proposed development and the extension of Lake Lucy Road. Basin 3 is located in the southeastern corner of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the south; approximately 0.4 acre of wetland is on-site. This wetland is part of a wetland complex and it drains south into Basin 1. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. Regulations A replacement plan will be required as part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance (CWO) requirements. The City administers the WCA. In Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 4 addition to the replacement plan requirements, staff would like the following information as part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils. The Army Corps of Engineers will also require a permit application for the alteration of wetlands. They should be contacted for their requirements. The WCA and the CWO require a wetland replacement ratio of 2:1 for wetlands filled. The wetland replacement plan should be designed to meet the existing functions and values that have been removed as a result of filling in other wetlands. The WCA was written to replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible or prudent. Alternatives for avoiding wetland impacts should be considered as part of the wetland alteration permit process. In addition, to the requirements of the WCA, the CWO requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and 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. The proposed grading plan will have to show the buffer strip and the appropriate house setbacks. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective 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 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. 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-developed and post-developed conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre-developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2.5-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 5 elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre-developed and post-developed conditions. Water Quality The SWMP has established an assessment rate 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 is proposes to construct the water quality basins, these fees will be waived. Water Quantity The SWMP has established an assessment rate 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. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $63,360 assuming 32 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with the SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. The exact fees will be determined after final review and approval of the construction plans and specifications. DRAINAGE The development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed. The SWMP should be reviewed by the applicant's engineer and the site designed in accordance with the SWMP design to the extent possible. All runoff shall be pretreated before discharge to any of the existing wetlands. Similar to Brenden Pond, Lake Lucy Road will intersect this parcel. The applicant's plans have included a segment of Lake Lucy Road; however, it does not correspond to the City's feasibility study. The Lake Lucy Road alignment is shifted northerly to facilitate two cul-de-sacs on the south side of Lake Lucy Road adjacent to wetlands. A storm water retention pond to pretreat runoff from the cul-de-sacs and part of Lake Lucy Road is proposed adjacent to the wetland. Another storm water treatment pond is proposed adjacent to Galpin Boulevard lying both north and south of Lake Lucy Road. The plans propose on the inlet and outlet discharge points of the storm sewer system are too close to one another. They should be separated to allow for greater retention time for the solids to settle out. Depending on the applicant's timing, they may petition the City, similar to the Brenden Ponds developer, for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the parcel. This would be a 429 public improvement project whereby the improvements would be partially assessed back to the benefitting property owners. This alignment is also a State-Aid route where State-Aid funding may play a role to assist in the funding on the project. Another Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 6 option would be for the applicant to construct the entire segment of Lake Lucy Road and be given credit for oversizing any utility lines and credit for the trail system along Lake Lucy Road. According to the City's SWMP, three storm water pretreatment ponds (Walker ponds) are proposed on the site. One is located just east of Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Boulevard. The other two are located just northerly of the wetland areas. The applicant has proposed two of the three ponding areas. The applicant may be given credit for the oversizing of the storm water treatment ponds and any trunk storm sewer facilities they install in conjunction with the overall development. This will be further reviewed upon the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. Staff encourages the applicant's engineer to review the City's SWMP plan for appropriate sizing of the ponding areas and trunk storm sewers. GRADING The site contains very steep slopes in the northwesterly portion of the site as well as a small ravine area. The slopes along the northerly portion are in the range of 20% to 30%. With these types of slopes it is very difficult to prepare a site for streets and house pads without significant grading. Staff has reviewed the plan and has prepared a few options with what we believe would be a more feasible approach to developing the steeper part of the site (westerly 1/3). We believe if the parcel to the north (Mancino) was to develop prior to this development we would require that a street be extended to the northerly line of this plat for a future cul-de-sac to extend lots off of this high ridge. This would make use of the existing topographic features of the property without substantially altering the grades. This would also allow for Lake Lucy Road to be extended along the southerly portion of the site to maintain a sufficient buffer and setback below the proposed homes along the northerly portion of the development. It would also allow for sufficient wetland mitigation and storm water treatment ponds adjacent to the wetland. One of the drawbacks with regards to this approach would be the lack of benefit that this development would receive from Lake Lucy Road. It is the City's intent to partially assess the benefitting properties for the construction of Lake Lucy Road; however, in this segment where no direct benefit is received the City would have difficulty assessing a portion of Lake Lucy Road. However, the City does have alternative financing methods such as State Aid to assist in developing the roadway system. The grading plan as proposed with the roadway alignment to the north has very steep backslopes adjacent to the curb which are not acceptable. The City's typical street section requires a boulevard area and then 3:1 slopes. The applicant is proposing 3:1 slopes immediately behind the curb. This will not allow for the proposed 8-foot wide bike trail along the north side of the road. The use of retaining walls may be employed to lessen the grading impacts; however, if this is done as a part of the City project it will increase costs significantly for the construction of these retaining walls. The applicant is also proposing three lots to access off of Lake Lucy Road immediately across from Mary Bay Court. Staff believes that Lot 10 is an unbuildable lot due to the steepness of the grades and proximity of Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 7 Lake Lucy Road. Lots 8 and 9 may be serviced off a private driveway off of James Court which would modify the house design from a tuck-under which is not desirable to a walkout which is more valuable. The applicant is proposing water quality ponds adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. Galpin Boulevard is classified as a local collector street and will need additional right-of-way dedicated with this plat. According to Carver County, a minimum corridor of 100 feet should be reserved for future upgrading to a four-lane street. Therefore, it is necessary for the applicant to dedicate an additional 17 feet of right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard. In addition, the first intersection west of Galpin Boulevard is too close from a spacing standpoint. The City's design standards are 300 feet. This intersection is approximately 190 feet from Galpin Boulevard. This will not provide enough stacking distance for turning vehicles onto Galpin Boulevard. Staff recommends the applicant redesign the intersection to be 300 feet from the center line of Galpin Boulevard. This will also play a domino effect to the other two intersections to the west (Jennifer Way and Mary Bay). This will significantly alter the plat design and therefore should recommend tabling to see the ramifications from these major changes. The City requires a streetscape plan for lots abutting the collector-type streets. Therefore, berming and landscaping will be required along County Road 117 and Lake Lucy Road. All berming should be outside the City and County right-of-way areas. UTILITIES As part of the City's Lake Lucy Road extension, the utilities will be brought to the intersection of proposed Pond View Court and Lake Lucy Road approximately 400 feet west of this development. Utilities are proposed to be extended along Lake Lucy Road. However, since there will be a gap between the plats, it will be necessary for the City and/or developer to extend Lake Lucy Road to service this development. Without that project, this development is premature. Depending on the final street layout, the City may require the applicant to extend utilities to the Mancino parcel to the north, but again this is all dependant on the street configurations to service the Mancino parcel from either Brenden Pond or this development. The existing home on Lot 32 (Ryan's) is currently on a septic and well system. The house should be connected to the new sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes operational. The well may be utilized as long as it is on the same lot and functioning properly. Once the well fails or the property owner sells, the property shall be required to connect to city water per city ordinance. Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 8 EROSION CONTROL The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the natural wetlands. The steep slopes may also require some form of terraced erosion control fencing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process. STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Another access will also be extended from the west if the City continues with the extension of Lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road may be built under the City's improvement project program if so petitioned by the applicant and authorized by the City Council. Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use Plan. It is also part of the City's Municipal State-Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision ordinance, direct driveway access onto a collector street should be restricted or controlled whenever feasible. Staff believes that Lot 10, located north of Lake Lucy Road, is not a buildable lot; however, Lots 8 and 9 should have a driveway access from James Court which would eliminate any driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. The alignment of Lake Lucy Road west of this development has not been finalized. The City has prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard. There are two other parcels of land that are directly impacted by the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The first parcel is located just west of this development and proceeding ahead with a preliminary plat (Gestach parcel - Brenden Ponds). The other parcel (Mancino) is located to the north of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property owners several options for access to the Mancino parcel from the Brenden Pond development and this development. Staff has also met with the Ryans to discuss two potential alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact this development. There is no clear- cut alignment of Lake Lucy Road that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation. The preliminary plat of Shamrock Ridge has utilized a northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and finds numerous problems from a design standpoint which will have to be resolved, thus potentially reducing the number of lots. Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through this parcel which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very steep slopes. However, this alignment works well with the existing terrain and minimizes impacts to the wetlands. The resulting impact from the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road requires short, steep cul-de-sacs as well as tuck-under type homes to the north of Lake Lucy Road unless access is from the north (Mancinos). Staff has put together three options that we see feasible for development of the three parcels (Brenden Pond, Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 9 Mancinos and Ryans). Option A - Pros (See Attachment #1) This alignment follows the City's feasibility study which minimizes grading and tree loss adjacent to the wetlands through the Ryan parcel. This alignment also allows for two options to extend the street access to the Mancino's parcel and further develop Outlot A, Brenden Pond with interior access versus access from Lake Lucy Road. One access would be through the southerly portion of the Gestach development along the ravine, although street grades in this alignment may be in excess of 10% and involve additional tree loss and filling of the ravine. The other option to access Mancinos could be to extend Pond View Court to the northeasterly corner of the Gestach plat for future access. This access is much less severe in grade, involves some tree loss and filling of a portion of the ravine and has single-loaded lots in the Mancino's parcel. The northerly extension into Mancinos preserves the natural features of the southwest portion of Mancino's property. Option A - Cons The Lake Lucy Road alignment is not conducive with the Ryan's proposed plat. This option leaves the Ryan parcel to develop with cul-de-sacs north of Lake Lucy Road which will involve steep street grades and tuck-under type homes at the end of the cul-de-sacs. Another scenario would be to delay development of these northerly cul-de-sacs until the Mancinos develop from the north. Access to this area is more conducive from the north in order to situate homes on top of the ridge. Option B - Pros (See Attachment #2) This alignment is conducive to the Ryan's preliminary plat although the Ryan's preliminary plat is anticipated to be revised due to inadequate intersection spacing along with wetland mitigation measures and storm ponding issues. Option B - Cons This roadway alignment does not follow the City's feasibility study. This alignment will push Lake Lucy Road further north resulting in steep slopes along the north side of Lake Lucy Road and mass grading which will significantly alter the existing terrain. This option will also limit access to the Mancino parcel from the extension of Pond View Court. Outlot A, Brenden Pond will have lots accessing Lake Lucy Road. This option may also require accessing the Mancino's via James Court from the Ryan's plat. Option C - Pros (See Attachment #3) Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 10 This alignment follows the City's feasibility study. This alignment will also maintain the existing topographic features by minimizing grading. This option also provides the most development flexibility to the Mancino parcel Option C - Cons This option would delay development of the westerly portion of the Ryan's plat until access is provided through Mancino's property. Conclusion Staff has reviewed these options and concluded that Option C should be implemented. This leaves development flexibility to the Mancino parcel and still allows both parcels (Brenden Pond and Ryan) to develop. Staff believes it is an appropriate way to develop the westerly one-third of the Ryan development. Due to steep grades, we believe that this site should be accessed from the north to retain its topographic features. If the Mancino parcel was the first to be developed, we would recommend that the Mancinos provide a street access to the south for development of this area due to the steep grades. Similarly, staff has required the Ryans to provide access to the Carlson parcel (south of Jennifer Way) due to the isolated parcel of land (surrounded by wetland). We feel that it is in the best interest of the City and property owners to make a development proposal which utilizes the existing topography. In addition, the Ryan plat needs to go back and be substantially reworked due to intersection spacing, wetland setbacks, wetland mitigation areas and storm ponding issues. The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 80-foot wide right-of-way for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the development. The plans also propose a 60-foot wide right-of- way and construction of the City's standard roadway section for the interior streets. Street grades range from 0.5% to 7% which is the City's maximum grade allowed. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as part of the final plat submittal. Should access to the Mancino parcel be considered through the north end of James Court, then the road right-of-way shall be dedicated with the final plat and conditions stipulated in the development contract that this street may be extended in the future. Staff also recommends that if the road is extended to the north for future extension, the street name should be modified or a new one assigned for stub street to Mancinos. REZONING The property is designated as Residential - Low Density (net density range 1.2 - 4.0 units/ac.). The proposed rezoning of the property to Single Family Residential is consistent with this land use designation. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 11 A landscape buffer shall be required along the length of County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard, and along both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, section 18-61 (a) (5). This buffer landscaping shall be developed as part of the preliminary and final plat submittal for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required. A woodland management plan must also be prepared as part of the platting process. In addition, a landscape plan including the landscape buffer and forestation and replacement planting must be prepared and approved by the city. As proposed, there is very little tree preservation being done except for within the wetland area. Staff estimates that approximately one-third of the existing tree canopy is being preserved. In reviewing the applicant's tree preservation plans and baseline canopy coverage calculations, staff believes that the calculations are in error. In reviewing the tree plan, staff estimates that there is a 13 percent baseline canopy coverage (4.25 acres or 185,346 square feet in 32.63 acres of net developable land). Tree canopy within a designated wetland is excluded from calculation. The required post development canopy coverage is 25 percent or a total of 8.16 acres of tree canopy. To meet the minimum canopy coverage requirements, the developer would need to develop a forestation plan for 3.91 acres (8.16 - 4.25) which would require the planting of 156 trees (3.91 x 43,560 / 1,089). In addition, because the developer is removing canopy coverage that is required to meet their minimum canopy coverage, they must replace the removed canopy area at a rate of 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed. Since the applicant did not provide these calculations, staff has estimated that the removed canopy coverage area is approximately 116,546 square feet The replacement planting is then calculated at 139,855 square feet (116,564 x 1.2). The number of trees required for replacement planting is calculated at 128 trees (139,855/1089). The total tree planting requirement as part of the development is 284 trees. PARKS AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission met on July 26, 1994 to review this proposal. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council require the following conditions of approval in regard to park and trails for the Shamrock Ridge plat: 1. Full park fees be collected per city ordinance. 2. An 8 ft. bituminous trail be constructed parallel to Lake Lucy Road. This construction to be incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road Extension Project. The developer shall be reimbursed for the cost of said trail from the city's trail fund. 3. Sufficient county road right-of-way/easements be maintained along County Road 117 (Galpin Boulevard) to accommodate possible future trail construction. Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 12 COMPLIANCE TABLE Block Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Frontage (ft.) Depth (Ft.) 1 1 18,946 140 145 1 2 22,265 55.64* 185 3 32,268 55.64* 232 4 27,246 55.64* 176 5 21,434 145 157 6 22,706 122 193 7 21,411 55.64* 181 8 25,749 55.64* 197 9 23,892 55.64* 163 10 19,130 124 157 11 18,827 116 143 12 15,637 90 174 13 16,975 90 189 14 21,111 80.84* 194 15 20,218 81.02* 200 16 22,313 83.03* 212 17 21,749 88* 226 18 15,000 101 246 2 1 35,273 205 172 2 29,230 69.81* 220 3 25.933 74.15* 206 4 15,000 111 144 5 15,000 90 143 6 15,000 114 137 Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 13 7 17,832 I 55.64* 164 8 22,643 55.64* 195 9 23,869 55.64* 199 10 18,594 71.37* 170 11 20,742 99 221 12 20,575 119 176 13 21,278 121 159 14 31,395 95 231 15 19,294 117 177 16 44,017 540 103# 3 1 15,566 92 177 2 16,784 92 191 3 17,541 90 198 4 15,107 113 189 5 16,067 103 179 6 15,614 90 173 7 23,096 125 165 8 22,071 142 195 9 22,229 115 209 10 23,128 105 201 11 32,599 61.17* 226 12 48,766 68.56* 257 13 31,711 68.19* 218 14 22,164 102 193 15 20,982 108 172 16 20,167 111 163 Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 14 Outlot A 216,049 Total Lots 50 1,126,144 Avg. Lot 22,523 NOTES: *Meets minimum lot width at building setback line. # Does not meet minimum dimensional requirements. FINDINGS Subdivision, Section 18-39 (f) 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets the minimum lot area requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. However, the plat does not meet all the requirements of section 18-60 (d) requiring that lots be placed to protect natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. Wetland mitigation areas and stormwater ponding areas shall be provided within the plat. Lot 16, Block 2 is a contrived lot configuration and does not meet the minimum lot dimension requirements and is recommended for denial. Section 18-57 (1) states that where a proposed subdivision is adjacent to a limited access highway, arterial or collector street, there shall be no direct vehicular or pedestrian access form individual lots to such highways or streets. Lots 14 and 15, Block 2 shall be served by a private drive from James Court and not via direct access to Lake Lucy Road. Additionally, local streets shall have a minimum centerline offset of three hundred (300) feet, section 18-57 (j). The development does not meet the tree preservation requirements of section 18-61. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the city's land use plan. However, the alignment for the Lake Lucy Road does not comply with the city's preferred alignment. Additionally, as proposed, the plan does not minimize grading or provide tree preservation pursuant to sections 18-60 (d) and 18-61. 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 Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 15 water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. Staff believes that the subdivision, as proposed, does not minimize grading of the site or try to maintain existing topography and land form. The applicants proposed stormwater ponding system is inadequate and must be revised. The steep slopes on the western half of the development make the development of this area problematic at best based on the development proposal due to the severe slopes. From a land use and site design standpoint, this property should be served from the north, eliminating the need for excessive grading of the site. 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 stormwater ponding on site does not comply with city standards. The applicant needs to petition the city for extension of Lake Lucy Road and utilities. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will impact the land form and existing wetlands and vegetation by the amount of grading. Staff is recommending changes to minimize the impact. 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 except for the provision of on site stormwater ponding, the alignment of Lake Lucy Road, and the access to the northwest half of the Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 16 development. The plat shall be revised to provide these infrastructure elements. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Wetland Alteration Permit (Section 20-407) When approving a wetland alteration permit, the following, principals shall be adhered to: 1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity may destroy or diminish the wetland. Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small parched wetland on the eastern end of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The applicant will be required to mitigate the wetland either through the enhancement of a wetland within the site or another within the watershed district. 2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation. Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small parched wetland within the required alignment for Lake Lucy Road extension. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposal minimizes the impact of the development while at the same time replacing and enhancing the wetland complexes. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland activity and its implementation. Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands on site or within the watershed. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the activity. Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 17 5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The applicant is proposing to fill a small parched wetland within the Lake Lucy Road extension alignment. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in the area. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter storm water. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission table the development in order to permit the applicant to address the following issues and concerns: 1. The submitted street names are acceptable. 2. Submit revised utility plans for approval of fire hydrant locations. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet maximum. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details. 3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 4. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203. 5. Provide a revised tree canopy calculation and tree preservation plan. 6. Provide a landscaping plan addressing the tree preservation requirements and landscape buffering along Galpin Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road extension. 7. Provide additional right-of-way for County Road 117 (Galpin Boulevard) to bring the centerline right-of-way width to 50 feet. 8. Full park fees shall be collected per city ordinance. 9. An 8 foot bituminous trail shall be constructed parallel to Lake Lucy Road. The construction will be incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road extension project. The Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 18 5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The applicant is proposing to fill a small parched wetland within the Lake Lucy Road extension alignment. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in the area. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter storm water. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission table the development in order to permit the applicant to address the following issues and concerns: 1. The submitted street names are acceptable. 2. Submit revised utility plans for approval of fire hydrant locations. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet maximum. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details. 3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 4. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Cede Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203. 5. Provide a revised tree canopy calculation and tree preservation plan. 6. Provide a landscaping plan addressing the tree preservation requirements and landscape buffering along Galpin Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road extension. 7. Provide additional right-of-way for County Road 117 (Galpin Boulevard) to bring the centerline right-of-way width to 50 feet. 8. Full park fees shall be collected per city ordinance. 9. An 8 foot bituminous trail shall be constructed parallel to Lake Lucy Road. The construction will be incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road extension project. The Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 19 developer shall be reimbursed for the full cost of said trail from the city's trail fund if the developer constructs said trail as part of their project. 10. Sufficient county right-of-way and or easements shall be maintained along County Road 117 (Galpin Boulevard) to accommodate possible future trail construction. 11. Revise Grading/Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 12. Revise the Grading/Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 13. Obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their removal. 14. A landscape buffer shall be required along the length of County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard, and along both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, section 18-61 (a) (5). This buffer landscaping shall be developed as part of the preliminary and final plat submittal for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required. A woodland management plan must also be prepared as part of the platting process. In addition, a landscape plan including the landscape buffer and forestation and replacement planting must be prepared and approved by the city. 15. Prepare baseline canopy coverage calculations and estimated canopy coverage removal area. Overlay the tree plan on the grading plan in order to verify tree preservation." 16. 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 pre-developed and post- developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events. 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. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 17. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $63,360 assuming 32 acres of developable land. Water quality assessments will be waived if the applicant constructs an on-site Walker pretreatment basin. These fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 20 changed prior to final plat. 18. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 19. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. The existing house shall be connected to the new sanitary sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes available. The well may be utilized as long as the well is on the lot and functional. Once the well fails or the property is sold the property owner shall connect to city water. 20. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The minimum easement width should be 20 feet. 21. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. 22. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration. 23. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 24. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 25. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 26. 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 proposed buffer strip shall be Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Page 21 shown on the grading plan. 27. The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans, wetland delineation report, a map with wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland areas and a map of the soils. 28. The existing home shall change its address to be compatible with the City's addressing system once the street has been constructed adjacent the house. 29. The grading plan shall be revised to provide for boulevards adjacent to all streets in accordance to the City's typical street standards. Berming shall be prohibited from all street right-of-ways. 30. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet State-Aid standards. The intersections shall be spaced a minimum of 300 feet apart along Lake Lucy Road in accordance to City design standards. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application 2. Preliminary Plat, Original Submittal 3. Preliminary Plat, Revised Submittal 4. Tree Plan 5. Memo from Bill Weckman to Chanhassen Planning Department dated 8/2/94 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 7/20/94 7. Memo from Mark Littfin to Bob Generous dated 717/94 8. Letter from Joe Richter to Bob Generous dated 7/18/94 9. Lake Lucy Road Alignment, Alternate 1 10. Optional 11. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List CITY OF • CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Z10-' DATE: August 11, 1994 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Shamrock Ridge, File No. 94-18 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings stamped"August 8, 1994" and prepared by Charles W. Plowe Consulting Engineer, we offer the following comments: WETLANDS According to the wetland delineation performed by Arlig Environmental,Inc. three wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows: Basin 1 is the large wetland located on the western boundary of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the west; approximately 4.7 acres of wetland is on-site. The wetland is classified as a natural wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance. Basin 2 is located along the eastern edge of the property. The wetland is approximately 0.8 acre in size. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. It appears that this basin will be eliminated and converted into a stormwater treatment pond as a result of the proposed development and the extension of Lake Lucy Road. Basin 3 is located in the southeastern corner of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the south; approximately 0.4 acre of wetland is on-site. This wetland is part of a wetland complex and it drains south into Basin 1. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. Regulations A replacement plan will be required as part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance (CWO) requirements. The City administers the WCA. In addition to Bob Generous August 11, 1994 Page 2 the replacement plan requirements, staff would like the following information as part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils. The Army Corps of Engineers will also require a permit application for the alteration of wetlands. They should be contacted for their requirements. The WCA and the CWO require a wetland replacement ratio of 2:1 for wetlands filled. The wetland replacement plan should be designed to meet the existing functions and values that have been removed as a result of filling in other wetlands. The WCA was written to replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible or prudent. Alternatives for avoiding wetland impacts should be considered as part of the wetland alteration permit process. In addition, to the requirements of the WCA, the CWO requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and 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. The proposed grading plan will have to show the buffer strip and the appropriate house setbacks. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective 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 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. 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-developed and post-developed conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre-developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2.5-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. 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. Bob Generous August 11, 1994 Page 3 Water Quality The SWMP has established an assessment rate 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 is proposes to construct the water quality basins, these fees will be waived. Water Quantity The SWMP has established an assessment rate 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. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate of$1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $63,360 assuming 32 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with the SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. The exact fees will be determined after final review and approval of the construction plans and specifications. DRAINAGE The development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed. The SWMP should be reviewed by the applicant's engineer and the site designed in accordance with the SWMP design to the extent possible. All runoff shall be pretreated before discharge to any of the existing wetlands. Similar to Brenden Pond, Lake Lucy Road will intersect this parcel. The applicant's plans have included a segment of Lake Lucy Road; however, it does not correspond to the City's feasibility study. The Lake Lucy Road alignment is shifted northerly to facilitate two cul-de-sacs on the south side of Lake Lucy Road adjacent to wetlands. A storm water retention pond to pretreat runoff from the cul-de-sacs and part of Lake Lucy Road is proposed adjacent to the wetland. Another storm water treatment pond is proposed adjacent to Galpin Boulevard lying both north and south of Lake Lucy Road. The plans propose on the inlet and outlet discharge points of the storm sewer system are too close to one another. They should be separated to allow for greater retention time for the solids to settle out. Depending on the applicant's timing, they may petition the City, similar to the Brenden Ponds developer, for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the parcel. This would be a 429 public improvement project whereby the improvements would be partially assessed back to the benefitting property owners. This alignment is also a State-Aid route where State-Aid funding may play a role to assist in the funding on the project. Another option would be for the applicant to construct the entire segment of Lake Lucy Road and be given credit for oversizing any utility lines and credit for the trail system along Lake Lucy Road. Bob Generous August 11, 1994 Page 4 According to the City's SWMP, three storm water pretreatment ponds (Walker ponds) are proposed on the site. One is located just east of Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Boulevard. The other two are located just northerly of the wetland areas. The applicant has proposed two of the three ponding areas. The applicant may be given credit for the oversizing of the storm water treatment ponds and any trunk storm sewer facilities they install in conjunction with the overall development. This will be further reviewed upon the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. Staff encourages the applicant's engineer to review the City's SWMP plan for appropriate sizing of the ponding areas and trunk storm sewers. GRADING The site contains very steep slopes in the northwesterly portion of the site as well as a small ravine area. The slopes along the northerly portion are in the range of 20% to 30%. With these types of slopes it is very difficult to prepare a site for streets and house pads without significant grading. Staff has reviewed the plan and has prepared a few options with what we believe would be a more feasible approach to developing the steeper part of the site (westerly 1/3). We believe if the parcel to the north (Mancino) was to develop prior to this development we would require that a street be extended to the northerly line of this plat for a future cul-de-sac to extend lots off of this high ridge. This would make use of the existing topographic features of the property without substantially altering the grades. This would also allow for Lake Lucy Road to be extended along the southerly portion of the site to maintain a sufficient buffer and setback below the proposed homes along the northerly portion of the development. It would also allow for sufficient wetland mitigation and storm water treatment ponds adjacent to the wetland. One of the drawbacks with regards to this approach would be the lack of benefit that this development would receive from Lake Lucy Road. It is the City's intent to partially assess the benefitting properties for the construction of Lake Lucy Road; however, in this segment where no direct benefit is received the City would have difficulty assessing a portion of Lake Lucy Road. However, the City does have alternative financing methods such as State Aid to assist in developing the roadway system. The grading plan as proposed with the roadway alignment to the north has very steep backslopes adjacent to the curb which are not acceptable. The City's typical street section requires a boulevard area and then 3:1 slopes. The applicant is proposing 3:1 slopes immediately behind the curb. This will not allow for the proposed 8-foot wide bike trail along the north side of the road. The use of retaining walls may be employed to lessen the grading impacts; however, if this is done as a part of the City project it will increase costs significantly for the construction of these retaining walls. The applicant is also proposing three lots to access off of Lake Lucy Road immediately across from Mary Bay Court. Staff believes that Lot 10 is an unbuildable lot due to the steepness of the grades and proximity of Lake Lucy Road. Lots 8 and 9 may be serviced Bob Generous August 11, 1994 Page 5 off a private driveway off of James Court which would modify the house design from a tuck- under which is not desirable to a walkout which is more valuable. The applicant is proposing water quality ponds adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. Galpin Boulevard is classified as a local collector street and will need additional right-of-way dedicated with this plat. According to Carver County, a minimum corridor of 100 feet should be reserved for future upgrading to a four-lane street. Therefore, it is necessary for the applicant to dedicate an additional 17 feet of right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard. In addition,the first intersection west of Galpin Boulevard is too close from a spacing standpoint. The City's design standards are 300 feet. This intersection is approximately 190 feet from Galpin Boulevard. This will not provide enough stacking distance for turning vehicles onto Galpin Boulevard. Staff recommends the applicant redesign the intersection to be 300 feet from the center line of Galpin Boulevard. This will also play a domino effect to the other two intersections to the west (Jennifer Way and Mary Bay). This will significantly alter the plat design and therefore should recommend tabling to see the ramifications from these major changes. The City requires a streetscape plan for lots abutting the collector-type streets. Therefore, berming and landscaping will be required along County Road 117 and Lake Lucy Road. All berming should be outside the City and County right-of-way areas. UTILITIES As part of the City's Lake Lucy Road extension, the utilities will be brought to the intersection of proposed Pond View Court and Lake Lucy Road approximately 400 feet west of this development. Utilities are proposed to be extended along Lake Lucy Road. However, since there will be a gap between the plats, it will be necessary for the City and/or developer to extend Lake Lucy Road to service this development. Without that project, this development is premature. Depending on the final street layout, the City may require the applicant to extend utilities to the Mancino parcel to the north, but again this is all dependant on the street configurations to service the Mancino parcel from either Brenden Pond or this development. The existing home on Lot 32 (Ryan's) is currently on a septic and well system. The house should be connected to the new sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes operational. The well may be utilized as long as it is on the same lot and functioning properly. Once the well fails or the property owner sells, the property shall be required to connect to city water per city ordinance. Bob Generous August 11, 1994 Page 6 EROSION CONTROL The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type HI erosion control fencing will be required around the natural wetlands. The steep slopes may also require some form of terraced erosion control fencing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process. STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Another access will also be extended from the west if the City continues with the extension of Lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road may be built under the City's improvement project program if so petitioned by the applicant and authorized by the City Council. Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use Plan. It is also part of the City's Municipal State-Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision ordinance, direct driveway access onto a collector street should be restricted or controlled whenever feasible. Staff believes that Lot 10, located north of Lake Lucy Road, is not a buildable lot; however, Lots 8 and 9 should have a driveway access from James Court which would eliminate any driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. The alignment of Lake Lucy Road west of this development has not been finalized. The City has prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard. There are two other parcels of land that are directly impacted by the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The first parcel is located just west of this development and proceeding ahead with a preliminary plat (Gestach parcel - Brenden Ponds). The other parcel (Mancino) is located to the north of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property owners several options for access to the Mancino parcel from the Brenden Pond development and this development. Staff has also met with the Ryans to discuss two potential alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact this development. There is no clear-cut alignment of Lake Lucy Road that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation. The preliminary plat of Shamrock Ridge has utilized a northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and finds numerous problems from a design standpoint which will have to be resolved, thus potentially reducing the number of lots. Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through this parcel which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very steep slopes. However, this alignment works well with the existing terrain and minimizes impacts to the wetlands. The resulting impact from the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road requires short, steep cul-de-sacs as well as tuck-under type homes to the north of Lake Lucy Road unless access is from the north (Mancinos). Staff has put Bob Generous August 11, 1994 Page 7 together three options that we see feasible for development of the three parcels (Brenden Pond, Mancinos and Ryans). Option A - Pros (See Attachment #1) This alignment follows the City's feasibility study which minimizes grading and tree loss adjacent to the wetlands through the Ryan parcel. This alignment also allows for two options to extend the street access to the Mancino's parcel and further develop Outlot A, Brenden Pond with interior access versus access from Lake Lucy Road. One access would be through the southerly portion of the Gestach development along the ravine, although street grades in this alignment may be in excess of 10% and involve additional tree loss and filling of the ravine. The other option to access Mancinos could be to extend Pond View Court to the northeasterly corner of the Gestach plat for future access. This access is much less severe in grade, involves some tree loss and filling of a portion of the ravine and has single-loaded lots in the Mancino's parcel. The northerly extension into Mancinos preserves the natural features of the southwest portion of Mancino's property. Option A - Cons The Lake Lucy Road alignment is not conducive with the Ryan's proposed plat. This option leaves the Ryan parcel to develop with cul-de-sacs north of Lake Lucy Road which will involve steep street grades and tuck-under type homes at the end of the cul-de-sacs. Another scenario would be to delay development of these northerly cul-de-sacs until the Mancinos develop from the north. Access to this area is more conducive from the north in order to situate homes on top of the ridge. Option B - Pros (See Attachment #2) This alignment is conducive to the Ryan's preliminary plat although the Ryan's preliminary plat is anticipated to be revised due to inadequate intersection spacing along with wetland mitigation measures and storm ponding issues. Option B - Cons This roadway alignment does not follow the City's feasibility study. This alignment will push Lake Lucy Road further north resulting in steep slopes along the north side of Lake Lucy Road and mass grading which will significantly alter the existing terrain. This option will also limit access to the Mancino parcel from the extension of Pond View Court. Outlot A, Brenden Pond will have lots accessing Lake Lucy Road. This option may also require accessing the Mancino's via James Court from the Ryan's plat. Bob Generous August 11, 1994 Page 8 Option C - Pros (See Attachment #3) This alignment follows the City's feasibility study. This alignment will also maintain the existing topographic features by minimizing grading. This option also provides the most development flexibility to the Mancino parcel Option C - Cons This option would delay development of the westerly portion of the Ryan's plat until access is provided through Mancino's property. Conclusion Staff has reviewed these options and concluded that Option C should be implemented. This leaves development flexibility to the Mancino parcel and still allows both parcels (Brenden Pond and Ryan) to develop. Staff believes it is an appropriate way to develop the westerly one-third of the Ryan development. Due to steep grades, we believe that this site should be accessed from the north to retain its topographic features. If the Mancino parcel was the first to be developed, we would recommend that the Mancinos provide a street access to the south for development of this area due to the steep grades. Similarly, staff has required the Ryans to provide access to the Carlson parcel (south of Jennifer Way) due to the isolated parcel of land (surrounded by wetland). We feel that it is in the best interest of the City and property owners to make a development proposal which utilizes the existing topography. In addition, the Ryan plat needs to go back and be substantially reworked due to intersection spacing, wetland setbacks, wetland mitigation areas and storm ponding issues. The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 80-foot wide right-of-way for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the development. The plans also propose a 60-foot wide right-of-way and construction of the City's standard roadway section for the interior streets. Street grades range from 0.5% to 7% which is the City's maximum grade allowed. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as part of the final plat submittal. Should access to the Mancino parcel be considered through the north end of James Court, then the road right-of-way shall be dedicated with the final plat and conditions stipulated in the development contract that this street may be extended in the future. Staff also recommends that if the road is extended to the north for future extension, the street name should be modified or a new one assigned for stub street to Mancinos. SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND REVISIONS 1. 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 Bob Generous August 11, 1994 Page 9 accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events. 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. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 2. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $63,360 assuming 32 acres of developable land. Water quality assessments will be waived if the applicant constructs an on-site Walker pretreatment basin. These fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 3. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 4. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. The existing house shall be connected to the new sanitary sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes available. The well may be utilized as long as the well is on the lot and functional. Once the well fails or the property is sold the property owner shall connect to city water. 5. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The minimum easement width should be 20 feet. 6. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. 7. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration. 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. Bob Generous August 11, 1994 Page 10 9. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 10. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 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 proposed buffer strip shall be shown on the grading plan. 12. The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans, wetland delineation report, a map with wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland areas and a map of the soils. 13. The existing home shall change its address to be compatible with the City's addressing system once the street has been constructed adjacent the house. 14. The grading plan shall be revised to provide for boulevards adjacent to all streets in accordance to the City's typical street standards. Berming shall be prohibited from all street right-of-ways. 15. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet State-Aid standards. The intersections shall be spaced a minimum of 300 feet apart along Lake Lucy Road in accordance to City design standards. ktm Attachments: 1 Option A. 2. Option B. 3. Option C. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g:lengid ianelplanning\sham rock.pc • .i k Z J I i Y JLL tx J elf :i -43,-43N— _ I ...,4"514it 4••.• 1 sat / i illi 1 3 N e6• T a i a 41 1 is ....a • • t )I N % \ ' a... 5,.. ...! ,,,.. .. , , , . . , ..- I ` , 1,,,,, \ .' '.... '0/1it ---�I. `�` \\,,,,,‘,,,, If,.! 3 Elle - -" Ito. it 11 if , fil %14444%1141%b ��'II -4 34�t .3:3 li \ 0 I it ' V \ =sue. Z a kI i • Q �� J ci W i 'It ‘ IC ciR AA* Ig4 .- - 12176, --------- 4.4.4,.4r .411, . A 'dlr.° ---....„ • 44,.., 3 14 Sii 3 - - 3 i 3 ' 3 Vii,.-' ��F`iy _ k�l 3 I `1\ `- / t `- `\ , 1 , \ • 0111:.\\\ .t 1101 4 �. \\%\i t 1 !I'M - a 1, r . �r4 • 111III. it LAI .0:111111111144111111111b3i /7 ;III ill 4 I a,, '''''''mionni<3R>..—... Z1:101,171I U 111, t*...' \ ' � C ti I J Y O J Cg oa ;�I. a i ii — ..4"11111;%Fik 41162..• . -....,_ Nicrry........'s 4. t \ i i • 4' at , ..I / sa t e .r ' 3 L;) .• O Ti a t a i i `\/ 1 1 \ \ . \ �.-- V .46 ••.s.? .00. \ \ \ A\ , id � � i t `\ V. 1," .l` - "iti\: cc:-, 1141 ..,K „. ,. .4 i 01-_k 1 i !Isis! birbrilillill AffA/ 11 i 44irt ii \ '\ C, AppC/CANT Ch 0/Cp Cy4 Zd 44:6',4 C/��Ny �pgssS s� & Mary R �RVF�Op (62593 ,7' ,9 M04491.9:4' .3p CdZ p j a� MF�VTq� �9oo SS31) 17 X�eI S10r Bo�1e gar 4pp�ICq�0 d01,1/4/k... .. N ONF raj'r; �1N SS3 O�4/ z me, 31 d 94 ApOR ¢ far 0 3`141 p sss' R �pehenS,�e p a� /an r�,Ona/use p A�ena�ent T s`�phON . enn E 4 4-1013 , � / oaketion p 71:"........... y\ 1 X 13 enn. pernl� 12 \ Vacation o _ \ kar; f qOW a eke;°p t3 X encs erne\ went \ Ivet/a 7q\ Zo naA6erdt/on p D 15 n�ng A'DiOeai e�t 2 \ Zoning o?pO OrceinanOs 4,776,17077e/71,sn0ment NOt�i CatiOn S P_?-_P- J- nor J•• •33J J ••.ins /5� J J JJ •FScrowfct , • •0� i9 Fse D J ) •p -- o�ACq�t' Csr., jJJ1 • •. •sue/MAp / J J JJT OFe $ ' etes eO��0's J JJ J J Jsob f --4°°faneb°4naf `a�es°fthe p�0e7y�i0optans*histsvbo�' :rOr aChpanShitproiroriatthe e • ij be• — — �%p�'nt Shat/6 cbntra`7 charged for each 4po/%14O17. PROJECT NAME Shamrock Ridge LOCATION 6730 Galpin Blvd Excelsior, MN 55331 LEGAL DESCRIPTION see enclosed PRESENT ZONING RR REQUESTED ZONING RSF PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Single Family AG REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Single Family Residential REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Prelimary Plat 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 fees, feasibility studies. etc. with an u understand that additional with the ss tyudy The documents umennts andfor nnformation I have submitted are true and corate prior to any rect to the best authorization to proceed of my knowledge. '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 Off',e/Old the original docient retu •e to City Hall Records. / 7Dl / at, 1 Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on 7" 5 Fee Paid �;)Q _ Receipt No.6-63,9 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. • 1 r =' • . . ,______,,, • 1 el ,-- . -:.‘i'-••• 4 1 ' • g IF-'-'4Z gl i • i ! a1 119g .., 000, 'b3;�-10 I I OI�A4.TeL...",1.;ri—.1-1Vi1;cii.i1i1-I17-,'..'.-I"7-'.".i.a'i':,",t.---- i0 "ice" ,, a„,,,. 990•-Iv;-. eIrPeriitIk-ep,-.4-iT4c!--.‘-,-r-a--,- ,. ,. , P "I i • k ,„"erj. ------, i . - 1110.t.,_,.. ; ,w_.z.._.... , 1,,,,,,,,,_„4 .dolze,=._1_,,,.., ili . , ‘_ Ne,_ t9:Wir:k`..r,.. 4004iirr -1,' , 0 — c:- rt=4, 4 ii,,,-yrinidm---- ---4.p.--_..010„ .- ..,,,.— adiriiii. INg:14,akeititit 1$ ;.;,. 0, ,,...:. Nivoorpgrati... frA.-___4,,TorriAla-kv ' . � .. zoo I , �^� A� ,a,, 91411.--- -."ft oa6 2 1 • � � , ;`iii i t�—� �� 066 7 u (-i' :4-ak.,141rm•r•ir...41;*, .7 . 7 ve...,..N....._......414*;040,,, . ._ . ;.:: ,iw_i&4..,ANIE-0007- ---.41,110k va, iff flbs..,,v- o+_ 2 i rei twmpiocite. Aoprook% lio+ 1 co \ ,,, 11_ fiLow".7.; fig*. 1 A.41Th . -4:11.4%-mtAl .7, 2470 ..„,...k,„,,p-A, ttetall ,r. „o` i 1 '-49 tit 1 4 1 ik-k.-4.*;. . A p z.,.,,, ,, .< ,, Cn ,------' 1- ::::- 4 • \,i,,,r-_-_ ,..Sit ,:',1v.....1k..- .41.,..4215.9 iitiih,„ %, 4 r O ; 7��`,'�]I!l � � I�(1�� �i �--• 'co W -1§ ,�� ,`,,);!' '',''_T�•, - / +���= - 086 0 < ., , _ .Rn - IX I iii, Allivil ,„,, p , . ,,,,:dc, ub tc, OCr; it". `-�- 0 a „. / li �€ , n Vill 44. i_.7._.,-:-.., Pi _ k Ce..egt. ' a $ t@s 4 '::: tE,,,,..:97 I ,11,r; 04:-- "r - , It etrit � "Alt bS :;:, ° O V°° CS s o e U w.0 Ill in 4 • p n Z Z° W=s"- O 0,1 f ' >et� `'s .zdi, i� 1 ! ul xa '''s t. w Ili i p O0z- H .I W roa wm.1 ii Z uE 0 Ili c " -/ I 'yl + 1Fe 3 h-7. .. i . --..-..' -,- L =% in t °•s 03 `OO• i U ■ ai I +9}/ °E r v 4 ' Y�I?1.01��//��Mnyyl��y.W��•l[YAo I i / �' 000,1 111 •�fIV�M1/ �- Z 1 I1 - I )....MOD5 ra �, _.w.,, _. _ - _-_- ._--_ _ _ -- 1 crs- y, �ar+'f ��jii! Lr a �'.► 1 990 1,7 1Lll191 , ' 4 4.: ,, 3 0 le S `•��� cr� j ,�" , tee � '/ F1, I' l.�.1_ ._ .�.'--- MI -u, 1 le 7,L...1 talbso.".0001:11,/,..imaNgitiliori ' ":;ipor _ -..- ,— 6 _4. V. I. --' 1 • •off ;z, ae 1 y ,.%„,,��. ..mcr� ;�.w •�) 0101 r 77 , 1 IMM °; I 1 a « it g , V — I ;--4.4-'..4ebr .?. t,/ ,i) .f. . ''‘- ,,' ,'Il , _.aid , " Y' cq. ,'--P -; 1 X .. — f. ,,- f okk •,.n. • • 00- ,44;,--,-,' ,....,`Oir /4 OW Ilattr-40‘3 il co (3 J-, :,.. ,.,. , :, ‘'r - . , • •••_ ,, , Ari;. ipliwik..s. ,..7. 0 _ r ., N ( ' ~'`�S `tl',I /� „...._---kit , i ' 0;. �_ :* 6 Nth'' t? • 0 t,,. •- -fo.. '....-. 1 ri; is),,,,,..,,,siiir _ __ -- -. _;-,- . ..0,c„.„--- --sm-..r....., ,-.4••.?„;••-; f 4rig ,, ------...__-.sak--.Z...4., '- —7 101111 ::0, 2 acii r , ., „--4.4,s \J .?. , --‘4 ' ,4111111 ------ --: -. -4.-- W.. ...-...----1...... .2'6 - , , .' yam_ _ ( 0 }N.• '''`) ! flit/ i i O.O _ R . : iI . - h I m.1,1,aa.na.0•AXMOPP• S a - ii-' 1 �_�J pi ` or rl� ate,- Ni k A :1 ;fid Eo i _. 1y. ; •�• : _ •i+ a dd L `II1 it el!" t 6 / rlr iv.,-,,h • t ijV 2 � a I jpia o`s§6o Ir �' � / tC of 2 qts ;a ; \6 /K `'1 !..,,e_ r�._ __ y'' It 4 S. -I 9 �6 41 `fig 5 e I had :t ; r •erai k 01 Id O 0 �0Cel at i C OV Z 7 W — wv -- d Jj 3 O 0 "'o Z IR ii au_Q `l 7 aim �+ P _ `azv 7_E t m I!!I 9 Ui- p ��z 9 Lli 1 Z 1 150= d X d m li �.. lL iii w. 14lir V k.- t i,. Ill otIpU 0 li 1-—"r 1 ---%1- --,. r,g- il g r 090 az Lii ,.: $ - 41.11111.1A - - ----- ----- - 11/1 -� r � -- -7►z,0� '990 - �� � — / , it .- - • --:•••;._ -- 7 /1 .. F Ndoit x,M :,..V"..s,,*.,.1. 4, ,,,,,0 , e.-- . 410iti_,; 0 '4.&41111 —.0111111111w p-41 in 13: ,-, 1 ..i m .��� 86 .r."-,•-=- •-•/ ` 'l* © 6 2+111011114- `� X6 tm=� 1 c) /, N 11AIL-14';---ib..14•144 f°-.%.' '411147-h000l iii 4.a.,•,W , ; • 4 1 a• ii, ) bp ' 10"N./ ( at.-:.,,,kxV. ......" Z 41M MOD 0 C il ( . s'7\\'1. 11-61e14..;14%...7.1. 11iiirl44_......mw .... liPeilli \ • 11 `- ��� ,I'IL � �_ •--- = NI-.K COli� QQ` T ‘4 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT "' (612)361-1010 / 600 EAST 4TH STREET.BOX 6 FAX(612)361-1025 CHASKA.MINNESOTA 55318 A'N E s0 COU\TY ofCAQVLI August 2, 1994 TO: Chanhassen Planning Department FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Shamrock Ridge (94-3 Rezoning and 94-7 Subdivision) Following are comments regarding the preliminary plat for the Shamrock Ridge subdivision transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated July 5, 1994. 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 80' 100' 110' 120' Urban Undivided Rural Divided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 190' 200' County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 33 foot from centerline corridor • = 4. 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 turn 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. 5. 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 theright of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed development. C QTY of looloi,4 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ib MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official R' DATE: July 20, 1994 SUBJ: 94-7 SUB, 94-3 REZ & 94-3 WAP (Shamrock Ridge) I was asked to review the plans for the proposed Shamrock Ridge Subdivision stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; JUL 5, 1994; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " 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. There appears to be a number of building within the proposed subdivision which will be demolished. Demolition permits are required before the removal of any buildings. Proof of well abandonment and onsite sewage treatment system abandonment is required prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Recommendations: 1 . Revise Grading/Drainage 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/Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3. Obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their removal. enclosure: 01/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo p:\satety\sak\memos\p:an\shamrock.bgl CITY OF ClIAN' IlASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • MEMORAN i UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4� 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 be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FLO or RLO Designates Prot Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the 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. SLr Designates Spfit Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry 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. SE SEWO WO F LO\ or RLO Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are 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. to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER i CITY OF 101 t'° CHANHASSEN' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner H FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: July 7, 1994 SUBJ: Shamrock Ridge Planning Case #94-7 SUB, 94-3 REZ, 94-3 WAP 1 have reviewed the site plan for the proposed single family dwelling concept and have the following requirements: 1. The submitted street names are acceptable. 2. Submit revised utility plans for approval of fire hydrant locations. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet maximum. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details. 3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 4. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203. g:'afety'mN4.7 STATE OF itiKnK �OO 'Li'� DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE Na. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106EN0 772-7910 July 18, 1994 Jo FCITY Vr Mr. Bob Generous, Planner II •, City of Chanhassen '~ 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: SHAMROCK RIDGE, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY (City #94-7 SUB, 94-3 REZ, 94-3 WAP) Dear Mr. Generous: We have reviewed the site plans (received July 7, 1994) for the above-referenced project (SW1/4 , Section 3 , T116N-R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. The project site does not contain, or appear to directly impact, any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands; therefore, no Protected Waters DNR permit is required. You should be aware that the project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on your project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 2 . The site does not appear to be within a shoreland or floodplain district. 3 . It appears that the stormwater is treated in non-DNR protected wetlands. In general, we are opposed to the primary treatment of stormwater in wetlands. Sedimentation/treatment facilities should be used to protect the wetland from sedimentation and water level bounces which are detrimental to the basins wildlife values and water quality. The determination of what is best at this particular site should be addressed by the city and other agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands subject to the Wetland Conservation Act. 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. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Bob Generous July 18 , 1994 Page 2 5. 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. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296-7203) . 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, j1'. Joe Richter Hydrologist c: Minnehaha Creek Watershed, Ellen Sones U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann City of Chanhassen General File f a 0 i z i Vs �_ ii \ 1;a : \ .\ z. aR i M \ 2 •A $$ INS i• w\,- e Ii!. I i°! iii RI I INSII II - k'Y IV li i I I VI111 ii 11 ' f• I j1; II' val R iR. .'\,...,..,.!•.",' :" '''' \ s1-117;."/ ,...\\I•TS I�I I1 R '~' 3 t i Q S I K F ti/t � iI! !i f "q; 1 l '1.i iiiiII III! O 1F. /i 6 y F e, .y x 8. Z ill > E 5 r�'i !;h _ 0 ii o Z f• / C i It T E r .• r� m - DALP/N 't E: r _ BL Ip0 �MRi -< \ • z � I CD. RD. 117 o _ r 1 X z!1 A 0� m y r z II< z 0 f 0 > ' fe n 1 4 ' r�s�� m o fE D r I :!. m i � i - = z g , - - m 1...,, € i z 1 o r , , , ***This item has been rescheduled for Wednesday, August 17 at 7:30 p.m.*** NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN4 GS}=I-I c: }�^' D Y� '_ c_ 1"1. ill-PLANNING COMMISSION P �, r MEETING it - Wednesday, August 3, 1994 "" li%� 0`1 _ . at 7:30 p.m. ,; --- --�- :'�City Hall Council Chambers - "�'- ' �; _ 690 Coulter Drive .1 . so I Project: Shamrock Ridge -1 � I Developer: Ed and Mary Ryan ; i % � � pr.v1 1S artiiiipi iff �a v Location: Galpin Boulevard and - - _.. f :.M Proposed Lake Lucy Road ' ` Extension I I 1 L.c w* , .= =`rte Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing to rezone 37.92 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat to subdivide 37.92 acres into 52 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit located at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and proposed Lake Lucy Road extension, 6730 Galpin Boulevard, Shamrock Ridge. 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 July 21, 1994. Kathy A. Gavin John & Mariellen Waldron Breck & Marliese Johnson 1851 Lake Lucy Lane 1900 Lake Lucy Road 6621 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 'Steven & Wendy Lame Buresh Lynn & Susan Rothberger Martin & Karen Gustafson 5651 Galpin Blvd. 6681 Galpin Blvd. 6691 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Greenery Co./Don Mezzenga Earl Gilbert III Martin & Beth Kuder 0/0 Scott Mezzenga 6901 Galpin Blvd. 6831 Galpin Blvd. 5931 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Brian Klingelhutz, D. Gestach, E. Jerome & Linda Carlson Dennis & Joan Clark & Leland Paulson 6950 Galpin Lake Road 6651 Hazeltine Blvd. 2031 Timberwood Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55331 Kristen A. Struyk Sam & Nancy Mancino Peter & Mary Davis 1941 Crestview Circle 6620 Galpin Blvd. 6640 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 • _IiimitsOi 1 NA i tiiiiitt rA, 4r *fit p nu 1.01,4 44,i, , <44-04efilig0 i trzigtve-Atie 41;, , 10, 1 ihA" Srs/y „f 1'�. iki Aft"/ rs c, 4416 ikedeed:hiii // j -r4 i Sirr /PAPRileall 0 1 -.1- f e04_,_11_._110144110114.1j10itit19,i17 ) //I:il1i ,1 PPOANIfiriPil 1 4 .�.�/moi` �� :t. 1illiP f Ilii fcjkilt rid/ f-�. w '���y ����► ._,_ Iiiiii,""Widl ),411,rtitttial 1 0„,,,,10-.. .7.7.-- .1:,,,,,......,,,,,-- --Alz.„--....,,mikaw,,,,,i--,..„„-..war.r..41,•I:,I f il IN r 0,4•311 1 ii!, = � ������- ��rgar ,\411'Iti , `•Q II4:1011t---'1�' t,•� `� /►- ��I'`�♦ �• . 1 ril litkit*-24 3,WA-0111,640p4,14. Ie.4.:54754- 0 ) 'PIA a-W11110411"tettii Vifir rj iii*, -i-w , s i> =9 of 0 AiVinale, 11-- lc— -4474.-w; ittilial ,1004lit t .- ' 3 I ;:&4001‘,110141 -,ia"Atet,LvwfiLiocitittittoorali. xi 5 ilft 0 ' WeL 44 NEITIOnlOWVP*".174:11 ,c 1,4•11114„...44184WEIBIAtA. I i Vir \ -.6tusitilla.t•mile.th-ri Ak `1` ..--2.47Via. '� rim► �� ■s �-,4 01 � �� a !/�/� rn�, �����►�y`��� inti jfiVrillAtt.Wkitati.25L-4. 46• it _.41.-- 1"..... ,_ jlatirleit/SPVVIAIM VtilA __ ._ ...4‘11011041:\•:=7-7:..."...4a`roriefr. P./„. fil ier--- rrititli Egli tZ�NTYR � -� s., - � 1 k RE I 1 1i _ii Y A id; 'i I Ii. fie r 1 0 co i1 d 1111 . ... -i tls: ¢ fie 11 :11 09, a� i` N 11 (1 t. • a N M: pN R.W.O. A Io ronao l. 1 • a a -- - - / u w,� Qvpi .-.1_,' ( !$ co i °� J ye ` _. V 0 alto a FA l R.W.O. ® V. / # .oda zor :- A ". , fit .• ..,.... . ,-..„ f A ** 1 i 4110p 1006.0 011, W lir co aaa ranoo _ _ w .NQS fid N 1 =g N:a ; 40I A r10 1 iiii , .0 /4;1 ' ' , '''''" . tillk 0. ill Wbb:::4° h. I§ _ .it AY N t$ �N 8 ,cc- ,,,., .,.., Q 1, A WS 1 :. ,/ t W' 4 NCL D QN co n3 n 4' ill' ,. .. R 1E10 6 Up''''" 1 ) r_ .211111111111%411144140.10.121.111,.... • - • 41 N L ,.. ili _,. .. N roo ,... 4.. .....•- COUNTY ROA ► ,ll NO. 1 i 7 x 1 Il o�o,v. ��_o In i t aN N t t ` 8niii! zms4 ;!I 3i=C .1: r : t •!..3;f1+" OS 113 igiI N L CITY 0 F PC DATE: 8/17/94 \\ CHANHASSEN � Y CC DATE: 9/12/94 CASE #: 94-4 REZ, 94-8 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 39.5 acres of property from A2, Agricultural Estate, to RSF, Single Family Residential, preliminary Plat approval for a proposed 51 lot E— single-family development, a wetland alteration permit to fill or alter wetlands Z within the development, and a conditional use permit for the placement of fill Q and excavations within the flood plain. VLOCATION: North of Twin Cities & Western Railroad tracks west of Bluff Creek and east of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek. CL Q.. APPLICANT: Heritage Development Q 450 East County Road D Little Canada, Minnesota 55117 (612) 481-0017 PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2 ACREAGE: 39.5 acres DENSITY: Gross: 1.29 units per acre Net: 1.84 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2, vacant S - PUD-IOP, Chanhassen Business Center, Twin Cities & Western RR E - IOP, vacant QW - RR & RSF, Timberwood Estates & Stone Creek Q ' WATER AND SEWER: Available W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The northern % two-thirds of the site consists of cultivated and pastured farm land. The northern 1/3 of the site has severe topographic changes from a low of 900 feet to a high of 960 feet. The property is bounded on the north and east by Bluff Creek. The southern 1/3 of the side is wooded. A ravine which acts as a temporary stream traverses the southern 1/3 of the project from west to east. Two wetlands are located on the property, one on the east and the other in the south. A third small wetland that is being filled is located near the high point of the site. A NSP transmission power line runs along the entire western limits of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre) ~ /—_ • -a r' lei /j i ^Q S IL eN ( _ MEaDo► 0 111111•111111 �/ k111p111ty .1i a lit mow,H11111ai .: 1 III - ii. �ro 44/115 i H.... f� JIm•rd' • .- v L___J - ilAk _,.. .. ..L1111 Silr.' ---,11),*„.., op, aim (II r.,/ ' 0 • A T • 11:73"P-111; % . . ,- --iggipisir. ,, 'll•avill.441111411 WI 11 PZIO1 0 if . 1.i.\1.6 .1-A11114:'' , *-W -— IV --ii 112.0 ARIICT I ' moo ' // Imp ��'�� • . j1) i Imes II J • +c.► t; VIC841 S O. X411 Ali/ / �a -tr uui eat. ,..?IA 1 Fillri41111 PVII411 -= N14.:16NITIFIll v.,. I .7.0_1 Ih-Zilk....:- .g, . o g o g / •�'11 i1 )1) sr - �i .j`�-.112 8800— % �°1' • t��� ♦r� .•• i \-. �i�� 1120411, 8900 o° \ ® W441 rir OIL MI 9000 ,Iitiii,,,r` 1� T N Sao if/ I Milt"= u . 9100 ) \ w1 _ Pry oo %gt �, - 9 .. , , i ' 9. 600 g r`4 .1 1— �. ; Jtom( 9100 9400 1 PIP AIIIIIIIIIt lir) � P 9I / 900 4 pOOp ---7 111111111t• giOJ , * -1 '`,.. -_o0 r .-_ -- ° _ Nr; nrpT Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a single-family subdivision consisting of 51 single-family home sites, 4.2 acres of right-of-way, 5.7 acres of wetlands, and 2.0 acres of parkland on 39.5 acres of land located in the central portion of the city on the west bank of Bluff Creek north of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad tracks. The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 15,055 square feet to 30,435 square feet (not including outlots) with an average net lot area of 19,593 square feet. The intent of the development is to create a project that is compatible with the natural elements of the area, specifically Bluff Creek, the ravine, the wooded area, and the existing topography, as well as the existing developments to the west and the future development to the north. Three wetland areas are located within the development, one along Bluff Creek in the central portion of the project, another in the south adjacent to the railroad tracks, and the third near the high point of the project. This plat meets the minimum lot size requirements for a single-family, but falls short of ordinance requirements for the preservation of site characteristics including topography, creeks and scenic views in the city's zoning and subdivision requirements. In addition, six lots do not meet the minimum lot frontage requirements at the building setback line: Lot 5, Block 1, Lots 8, 12, 14, 15, 22, and 23, Block 3. Seven lots are accessed via a private drive that staff cannot make the appropriate findings to support: Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, and 23, Block 3. Protection and enhancement of natural features should be provided. There are numerous issues that need to be resolved or further defined before this proposal could receive preliminary approval. One of the most important recommendations that the applicant needs to incorporate into the proposal is the design components for Bluff Creek corridor. Specifically, staff believes that the roadway alignment for the project should be adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor in order to provide the community and the future home buyers in this development a shared sense of ownership of the wetland area and the open space to be created in the wetland complex. Additionally, the parkland dedication proposed by the applicant is unacceptable to the city. Instead, the city is requesting that the wooded areas located south of the ravine and east of the roadway be dedicated for passive park purposes. The city will acquire any of this land in excess of the subdivision dedication requirements by negotiation or condemnation if necessary. A trail easement shall be provided along the Bluff Creek corridor. Staff believes this site warrants further review before receiving preliminary plat approval. Staff is recommending numerous revisions for the subdivision that will enhance environmental protection and make the development better for the community and the future residents of this neighborhood. BACKGROUND Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 3 The 39.5 acre parcel being submitted for review was formerly contained in a concept PUD submission for Chanhassen Corporate Center and more recently as a single-family PUD. The Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 to recommend denial of the conceptual single-family PUD. In their review, the Commission was concerned about the lack of details provided by the applicant for this stage of the development review - e.g. house pad locations, detailed drainage and utility plans, grading plans - as well as the numerous issues pointed out in the staff report. The primary issue of the Commission was the question as to whether this proposal is premature based on the need for the city to define all the criteria regarding the Bluff Creek corridor as well as the wetland areas. The Commission was also concerned about the following issues: 1. number of lots under 15,000 square feet in area (21 of 56 lots or 37.5 percent of gross lot area and 26 of 56 lots or 46.4 percent of net lot area), 2. treatment of Bluff Creek, the ravine and the wetlands, 3. drainage patterns, specifically, how the development will impact drainage from adjacent property, 4. minimizing grading, topographical disruptions and working with and maintaining some of the steep grades, 5. providing a transition from Timberwood to Heritage, concern about lot size directly abutting Timberwood, 6. overall density of the development, 7. minimizing tree loss, 8. location of sanitary sewer stub into Timberwood, and 9. timing for the northern extension of the road to the proposed east-west collector street. The City Council granted conceptual approval to the single-family residential PUD on May 23, 1994 with the direction to resolve the numerous issues contained in the staff report. The applicant's conceptual plan originally had 56 lots, but was reduced to 53 lots after initial revisions. Since Council's approval, staff and the applicant met to determine if the direction provided in the conceptual PUD approval could be implemented. A sketch plan of the development with the roadway alignment adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor was provided by the applicant. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 4 The Bluff Creek alignment plan showed a total of 44 lots located to the west of the roadway. Parkland, encompassing the land south of the ravine and east of the roadway, was also dedicated. The Heritage First Addition proposes a total of 51 lots. However, at least 3 of the lots being served by the private drives will be eliminated. Also, the four lots south of the ravine and east of the roadway are to be dedicated and/or purchased by the city for parkland. The plat is therefore reduced to 44 lots which is the same number of lots that were provided as part of the Bluff Creek alignment proposal. Staff believes that the Bluff Creek alignment plan is a better proposal for the community as a whole and therefore is recommending that this plat be revised to show the realignment of the roadway. SITE ANALYSIS The northern two-thirds of the property are currently in an agricultural state with a wooded area in the southern one-third of the site. Within the southern area, adjacent to the Twin Cities & Western Railroad line is a wetland/ponding area. Bluff Creek is the easterly and northern border of the site. A tributary to Bluff Creek runs within a ravine located within the wooded area in the southern third of the site. A large wetland complex is located on the eastern part of the development adjacent to Bluff Creek. The property has varied topography with over a 60 foot change in grade. Timberwood Estates, a large lot subdivision, is located west of the project. A NSP electrical transmission line and easement runs along the entire length of the western border of the site. REZONING The rezoning of the property from A2 to RSF is consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan designation of the property as Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 Units/Acre). Staff supports the rezoning of the site as part of the subdivision process. SUBDIVISION REVIEW STREETS/ACCESS The plans propose extending Stone Creek Drive from the southwest corner of the site to immediately provide access to the site. The north/south street will eventually tie into the City's south frontage road project which is currently under construction. There will, however, be a gap between this development and the frontage road. Staff believes that preliminary and final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the applicant providing a financial escrow with the City to guarantee completion/connection of the "north/south" road to the frontage road within three years after the final plat is approved by the City Council to insure that this development is connected in the future to avoid a "dead-end" street scenario. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 5 The applicant is proposing to dedicate the necessary 60-foot wide right-of-way for the north/south street. Access from the south (Stone Creek Drive) which is considered as a neighborhood collector, is being constructed with a portion of the Stone Creek development. The street section was built 35 feet wide back-to-back within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. In addition, a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk was constructed as well. Staff is recommending that this typical street cross-section be extended through the Heritage plat on up to the future frontage road. The applicant is proposing on the preliminary landscape plan a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the westerly side of the north/south street. Street grades range from 1% to 4% which are within the City's standards. The applicant is also proposing two private driveways. The street grade on the northerly private drive is approximately 7% which is also within City ordinance. The southerly private driveway access appears to be less than 7% grade. The northerly private driveway fails to conserve topographic features or reduce grading. Staff believes that this driveway should be expanded to a full city street/cul-de-sac. The applicant should also verify that sight lines at this intersection will meet MnDOT's criteria based on a 35 MPH design speed. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as a part of the final plat submittal. Street construction plans shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval. The applicant is proposing the use of two private roads to provide access to seven proposed lots along the western edge of the property. City Code, Section 18-57 (o) permits up to four (4) lots to be served by a private road 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. For the most part, this site is an open field which is constricted on the east by the Bluff Creek corridor. The developments to the southwest (Stone Creek) and to the west (Timberwood) all provide public streets. There are no special conditions which would prohibit the development of a public street within this project. (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. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 6 FINDING: The extension of the public street system to the west is not required to service the parcels in Timberwood. (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees. FINDING: The proposed private drives do not enhance the protection of wetlands or trees since they are located in the middle of the previously cultivated fields. These private roads are being proposed only to permit the developer to plat additional lots, rather than for any environmental protection or community enhancement. The developer is proposing the private roads for his own convenience and not for the enhancement or protection of environmental features or community goals. Since the city cannot make the required three findings in support of the private roadways, staff is recommending that the private roadways be denied. Staff has compared the length of the proposed roadway alignment in Heritage First Addition and an alignment which is adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor. The applicant's proposed alignment is approximately 3,000 linear feet. The alignment adjacent to Bluff Creek is approximately 3,100 linear feet. The environmental and community benefits of the Bluff Creek alignment vis-a-vis the additional length of the roadway are great enough to lead staff to recommend the realignment of the roadway. Should the roadway be aligned along the Bluff Creek corridor, the sidewalk would be eliminated and replaced with the proposed bituminous trail except at the connection to Stone Creek. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has prepared a tree survey of the site locating all significant trees and canopy coverage calculations. The base line canopy coverage is 21.9 percent (7.4 acres). City code requires a post development canopy coverage of 30 percent (10.1 acres). Therefore, the applicant would be required to plant 2.66 acres (441,698 .. 325,800/ 43,560) as part of their forestation program for this development. In addition, the applicant has estimated that they will remove 173,000 square feet of the existing canopy coverage. Since this canopy coverage is required to meet the minimum canopy coverage requirement, there is a replacement requirement of 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed. This replacement area amounts to 4.76 acres (173,000 x 1.2 / 43,560). The total tree planting requirement based on the forestation and replacement requirements is 297 trees (2.66 + 4.76 x 43,560 /1,089). The landscaping plan needs to be revised to reflect these tree planting requirements. In order to permit staff to verify the tree preservation calculations, the tree survey/canopy coverage areas need to be overlaid on the grading plan. The landscaping plan shall be revised to incorporate the following changes: Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 7 1. Substitute Arborvitae (White Cedar) for all Balsam Fir. Cedars will do better with our soils and the location. 2. Add Kentucky coffeetree to boulevard plantings instead of using so many Lindens to improve specie diversity. 3. Substitute Larch for White Pine near proposed pond. Depending on how close they are to the pond, larch will do better than white pine if there's ever any overflow. 4. Mix the white pine at the entrance with some Austrian pine since there's always the chance of a white pine blister rust infection. Austrian pine is the best pine for clay soils. 5. Mix up the monoculture of Red Oak - there are 25 in a row! Intersperse with Bur Oak. In developing the subdivision design, every effort should be made to preserve existing trees. Where possible, the applicant should attempt to preserve stands of trees in preference over individual trees. With the relocation of the roadway alignment adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor, the stand of trees located in the central portion of the site can be partially saved in conjunction with lot line revisions. A woodland management plan shall be prepared for the entire development pursuant to the tree preservation ordinance. The subdivision standards require one tree to be planted in the front yard of each home. Credit for preserved trees of six inches or larger caliper can be granted. As part of the final process, the applicant will be required to provide a detailed landscaping plan for the development. WETLANDS The City is committed to the protection and restoration of the Bluff Creek corridor and is initiating a comprehensive watershed plan to protect the creek and the corridor associated with it. This site includes the headwaters of Bluff Creek and three wetlands of which two of them have high potential for protection and restoration (Attachment #1). This project must meet the requirements for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed setbacks and replacement requirements as stated in the Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) and the City Wetland Ordinance. The City is the Local Governing Unit (LGU) administering the WCA. Replacement plans for wetland fill greater than 10,000 square feet may take up to 100 days to process. Bluff Creek - An east and west branch of Bluff Creek come together at the northern part of this proposed development and Bluff Creek continues to run north to south through the site. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 8 The creek discharges into the Lower Minnesota River approximately three miles south of the site. The east branch and the main channel of Bluff Creek is a DNR protected water. The City's shoreland ordinance requires that the lowest floor of a structure be placed at least three feet above the highest flood of record, the ordinary high water level, or the level of a technical evaluation conducted to determine the effects of flood stages of the proposed construction. If there is more than one approach used, the highest flood protection elevation determined shall be used for placing structures and other facilities. The watershed district, the City, and the applicant will have to meet to evaluate the methodologies used to determine flood elevations in order to establish a flood elevation for the creek based upon the best available information. Wetland A15-11(1) - Approximately 4 acres of an ag/urban wetland is located along Bluff Creek in the lower two thirds of the site. This wetland extends east off the property and is approximately 12 acres total in size. The wetland has been drained and altered in the past and has a high potential for restoration as part of the Bluff Creek Corridor. Wetland A15-15(1) - Approximately 0.7 acre of an ag/urban wetland is located in the southwest corner of the site. A small portion of this wetland is proposed to be filled as a result of the development. The quality of this wetland, however, is better than some ag/urban wetlands since the surrounding area is heavily wooded. Wetland A15-7(1) - Approximately 0.03 acre of an ag/urban wetland is located in the northwest corner of the site. This wetland appears to be a parched system and will be filled as a result of the development. Bluff Creek Tributary - There is a creek draining from the property in the southwest corner of the property to Bluff Creek. Although this creek is not DNR protected or a designated wetland it provides a natural resource amenity to the area and contributes to water quantity and water quality components of Bluff Creek. This creek drains from west to east through a heavily wooded area with a marginal understory. Buffers and Setbacks - The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetlands located on the property. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. 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 for these wetlands 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 construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 9 The tributary to Bluff Creek located in the southwest portion of the site should be preserved for the most part. A sanitary sewer line shall be installed along this creek since it is the best location to provide a gravity feed system to service Timberwood Estates in the future. Soil erosion and sedimentation are of greatest concern to this area especially during the time of construction. Staff recommends that heavy-duty Type III erosion control fencing be installed and maintained along Bluff Creek/wetlands where no ponding areas are proposed and Type I silt fence adjacent the storm ponds until the entire site is fully revegetated and removal is authorized by the City. Staff also recommends that a drainage and utility easement be established along the creek with a minimum width of 20 feet after construction. Bluff Creek is planned as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge point at the Minnesota River. Staff has reviewed the upper part of Bluff Creek with the Design Center at the University of Minnesota and recommends a 100 foot buffer to maintain a natural resource corridor as well as a recreational and educational trail corridor. Wetland Replacement - The applicant will be required to replace altered wetlands at a ratio of 1:1 to provide no net loss. Staff requires that the developer to assist with the restoration of wetland A15-11(1) as the additional mitigation required under the Wetland Conservation Act rather than mitigating by extending wetland areas at the state's mitigation ratio of 2:1. It is anticipated that this wetland restoration will be one of the projects incorporated into the Bluff Creek Corridor. The buffer strip for the upper part of the watershed is a very important issue to address in the design of the Bluff Creek Watershed Plan since this will provide a guide to the type and amount of open space necessary to preserve, enhance, and protect the natural resources of the basin. The wetland buffer strips in the City ordinance are very liberal protection requirements and only take into consideration the type of wetland. UTILITIES As part of the City's Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and watermain project, sanitary sewer and watermains have been extended to the southwesterly corner of the site. The City, in conjunction with the development of the school site, has approved a construction project to extend trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to the school which is located north of Timberwood Estates and east of Galpin Boulevard. Sanitary sewer service for the site was proposed to be extended through this development. However, due to timing delays, an alternative alignment was developed to service just the school site. It is still the City's intention for the trunk sanitary sewer line to extend through this development and serve north of Trunk Highway 5. The City has contracted with Barton-Aschman to prepare the construction plans for this next segment of trunk sanitary sewer and watermain. Barton- Aschman has review two scenarios to extend service through this development. The first scenario was to utilize the developer's proposed roadway alignment. From an economic Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 10 standpoint, it would be more cost-effective for the City and the developer if this trunk sanitary sewer line could be utilized to serve both as a lateral and a trunk benefit to the adjacent property. The drawback to this street alignment is due to the extensive grades on the site. This will result in an excessively deep sewer line (35 feet deep) in some areas. From both a financial and a maintenance standpoint, this alternative is not desirable. Repairs of a sewer line approximately 35 feet deep would result in a trench width of a minimum of 70 feet at the top. This work would fall outside the City's road right-of-way and into adjacent front yard areas. The second scenario the City's consultant reviewed was the roadway alignment following the edge of the wetland (Bluff Creek). This scenario provided much shallower sewer lines which were more cost-effective and preferred from a maintenance standpoint. In addition, it still enabled the developer to utilize the trunk sewer line as a lateral line to service the adjacent proposed lots. In either scenario, the developer should provide at no cost to the City the necessary easements for the construction of the sanitary sewer lines through the development. All utility construction outside the scope of the trunk sanitary sewer lines shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the utility improvements will be required for submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. The City's contract could be expanded to construct the developer's sanitary sewer laterals and services if so desired. In conjunction with the final platting process, the applicant will be 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 final plat approval. Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide Timberwood Estates with sanitary sewer service in the future. Staff has explored the possibility of extending the sewer line through Stone Creek 4th Addition to Timberwood Drive. However, there are two low points on Timberwood Drive where the sanitary sewer will actually be daylighted. Therefore, the other alternative is to provide service to Timberwood Estates along the Bluff Creek tributary corridor between Lots 25 and 26 and 23 and 27, Block 3 (Heritage Preliminary Plat Development). Generally, this is the lowest area on the development. In the future, sanitary sewer could be extended along the Bluff Creek tributary which lies just north of Renaissance Court. This would give sufficient elevation to serve the entire development of Timberwood Estates via a gravity system. Staff will be recommending that the applicant extend an 8-inch sanitary sewer line along the Bluff Creek Corridor to the westerly boundaries of the plat for future service to Timberwood Estates. Although this may result in immediate impact along the tributary of Bluff Creek, this is not uncommon for extension of sanitary sewer due to the fact that streams or lake areas are usually the lowest areas in the City. The extension of Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer already runs adjacent to the Bluff Creek Corridor from Lyman Boulevard. The area will re-vegetate and retain its natural features upon conclusion of the project. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 11 GRADING AND DRAINAGE Except for the southerly portion of the property, the proposed grading plan will impact the topographic features of the site extensively. Existing elevations as high as 957 in the north part of the parcel would be graded down to approximately 936. This is due to the extreme elevation changes on the site. Staff believes that extensive earthwork will be necessary to prepare the site for building pads and utility and street construction. According to the Bluff Creek Corridor Study, Lots 1 through 4, Block 1 in the northern portion of the property will have a limited amount of buildable area with the proposed 100- foot setback from the creek. This is also true in the southern portion of the site along Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 2. The southerly portion of the site is heavily wooded and is not proposed to be graded at this time except for the roadway. It appears the applicant is desiring to custom grade each lot as a building permit is issued. The applicant should demonstrate on the grading plan the proposed house type and elevations of the garage floor and lowest floor elevation of each particular lot within the subdivision. In addition, the builders of the wooded lots will be required to submit individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans for each house for staff to review and approve prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff has reviewed a previous roadway alignment which followed the eastern edge of the development. Staff recommends that the road be relocated to follow the easterly edge of the development to provide a buffer between the development and the Bluff Creek Corridor. This street location will also be of a financial benefit for the installation of the trunk sanitary sewer line as well as future maintenance aspects of the system. The developer will still be able to develop the property in accordance with this overall plan with the exception of walkout lots immediately adjacent to the Bluff Creek Corridor. This development abuts Timberwood Estates to the west. The applicant is providing for drainage from the Timberwood site to drain between the home sites where storm sewer will convey storm water runoff to the water quality ponds proposed adjacent to Bluff Creek. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will 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 Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 12 use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. 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 be in accordance with the City's SWMP. 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 21/2-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. Two stormwater ponds are proposed along the central western edge of Bluff Creek to pretreat the water according to Walker standards prior to discharge into Bluff Creek. A trail is proposed between the two ponds. The trail should be moved to the southern end of the stormwater pond and routed along the tributary creek to the road. The two ponds should be combined and the stormwater pond's inlet should be located on the north end of the pond and discharged at the south end to allow for longer residence time within the treatment pond before it is discharged into Bluff Creek. Another storm pond labeled "proposed temporary pond" located at the north end of the site will also be constructed to pretreat storm runoff from the northerly portion of the development. This ponding location is anticipated to be increased in size when the 8 acres to the north is developed. In an effort to consolidate storm ponding areas, staff would be interested in working with the property owner to purchase additional land to relocate the school's storm water pond to this location. SWMP Water Quality Fees - The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. 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 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 applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be waived. SWMP Water Quantity Fees - The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. The single-family low-density developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. The proposed development of 33.8 acres of single-family Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 13 residential acres would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $66,924. 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, ponding, etc. 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 of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. EROSION CONTROL An erosion control plan is required and should be incorporated on the site plan and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction commencement. Staff recommends the applicant use the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas are to be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to prevent erosion and sedimentation. Protection around catch basins such as hay bales or silt fence is also required until the pavement is installed (BMPH). If at all possible, construction of the site in stages is highly recommended to help reduce sedimentation into the City's infrastructure. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 14 PARKS/OPEN SPACE The City of Chanhassen is in the beginning stages of preparing a proposal to develop and begin implementing a comprehensive natural resource management plan in the Bluff Creek Watershed that demonstrates prudent development can occur in harmony with protection and restoration of natural systems and unique resources in an urbanizing watershed connected to the Lower Minnesota River. Due to the timing of the proposed development, the City's comments at this point are pending on the temporary design components that will be initiated in the upcoming months. As part of this corridor design, the following issues will be addressed. The establishment of a linear park encumbering the entire Bluff Creek Corridor including adjacent wetlands and areas/lands of significance to the corridor has been identified as a top priority of the City's Comprehensive Recreation Plan. - A trail will be a part of this park. The trail will pass under the Twin Cities and Western Railroad at a viaduct located at the southern terminus of this concept plat. Public ownership of the entire creek corridor, including lands required for trail construction, is desired. The city will require the dedication of the area south of the ravine and east of the roadway alignment. Dedication of land in excess of that required under the subdivision ordinance will be compensated at a fair market rate. If the developer and the city can not agree on a fair market value, then the city will condemn the property. This area provides a unique transition from the open wetland trail to a small segment of mature wooded forests. An existing farm path that traverses this area will be incorporated into the trail system. Additionally, a 30 thirty foot trail easement shall be dedicated along the entire length of Bluff Creek. The developer shall construct the trail and receive trail fees credits in proportion to the costs of the trail's construction. At their meeting on August 9, 1994, the Park and Recreation Commission moved unanimously to recommend to the City Council the following conditions in regard to parks, trail and open space and to bring back a redesigned plan incorporating their recommendation: 1. The land bound by Bluff Creek on the east, the railroad on the south, the extension of Stone Creek Drive on the west, and the arm of Bluff Creek on the north be shown as parkland. Said property to be purchased through a combination of park dedication fee credit and cash. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 15 2. The open space corridor along the creek shall lie adjacent to the road. Compensation for any open space lying between the wetland and the subject road's right of way would be made under this scenario. 3. The alignment of the 8 ft. bituminous trail be amended to reflect the direction given the applicant by staff specifically that the trail shall depart the creek corridor enter the parkland and meet the road extension at the southern wetland prior to its connection with the railroad underpass. Said tail to be constructed with the first phase of improvements completed by the applicant with a lump sum cost for the trail being reimbursed by the city. Note: The applicant shall supply the city with three quotes for the construction of said trail with the final alignment being staked for approval by the City's Park and Recreation and Engineering Departments prior to construction. COMPLIANCE TABLE LOT BLOCK AREA (SQ. FRONTAGE DEPTH (FT.) FT.) (FT.) 1 1 20,323 149 136.5 2 1 20,006 110 153.5 3 1 no such lot on plat 4 1 20,626 90 181 5 1 24,807 80* 226.5 6 1 25,402 83# 225.5 7 1 22,074 82# 205 8 1 20,263 96 189.5 9 1 15,120 102 149 10 1 15.055 110 137 11 1 15,157 120 161 12 1 15,741 102 157.5 13 1 16,432 109 151 14 1 16,774 134 155.5 15 1 18,127 153 144 Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 16 16 1 15,149 109 125 1 2 20,253 100 156 2 2 20,861 119 151.5 3 2 21,232 148 140 4 2 22,709 106 173 5 2 23,080 90 241.5 6 2 21,701 155 155 7 2 20,008 126 159.5 1 3 22,654 105 171.5 2 3 15,901 95 152 3 3 18,048 94 162 4 3 17,160 156 183.5 5 3 17,160 115 179 6 3 21,832 150 130 7 3 21,757 126 185.5 8 3 28,074 73# 336 9 3 17,188 207 171.5 10 3 16,938 99 169.5 11 3 17,153 98 173 12 3 17,962 84* 170.5 13 3 19,381 97 212.5 14 3 16,900 81# 185 15 3 15,458 86# 172.5 16 3 15,239 918* 168 17 3 15,404 88* 168 18 3 16,912 99 186.5 Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 17 19 3 21,397 117 239.5 20 3 15,862 116 159 21 3 21,046 40* 147 22 3 16,226 51# 161.5 23 3 21,182 39# 189 24 3 18,936 125 148.5 25 3 23,045 200 135 26 3 20,795 175 128 27 3 30,435 100 258 28 3 24,930 240 140 29 3 23,363 125 137.5 A 7,129 B 7,841 C 230,868 D 63,162 E,F, 73,616 G Notes: * Meets Minimum Frontage at the Setback Line; # Does Not Meet Minimum Requirements The applicant needs to revise the plat to correct deficiencies in the plat design: six lots do not meet the minimum lot frontage requirements at the building setback line: Lot 5, Block 1, Lots 8, 12, 14, 15, 22, and 23, Block 3; seven Lots are accessed via a private drive that staff can not make the appropriate findings to support: Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, and 23, Block 3. Additionally, Section 18-60 (a) requires that all lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance or on a private drive; Section 18-60 (b) states that side lines of lots shall be substantially at right angles to straight street lines or substantially radial to curved street lines; section 18-60 (d) states that lots shall be placed to preserve and protect natural amenities, such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas; and section 18-60 (e) states that lot remanent Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 18 are prohibited. Lot 5, Block 1, Lot 6, Block 2, and Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 , 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, and 27, Block 3 violate Section 18-60 (a). Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Lots 6, 8, 9 21, 22, 25, and 26, Block 3 violate Section 18-60 (b). Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, and Lots 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28, Block 3 violate Section 18-60 (d). Outlots A and B violate Section 18-60 (e) and should be combined with the abutting lots. The plat shall be revised to eliminate these violations of code requirements. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS Subdivision, Section 18-39 (f) 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets the lot area requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. However, six lots do not meet the minimum lot frontage requirements at the building setback line: Lot 5, Block 1, Lots 8, 12, 14, 15, 22, and 23, Block 3; seven Lots are accessed via a private drive that staff can not make the appropriate findings to support: Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, and 23, Block 3. Lot 5, Block 1, Lot 6, Block 2, and Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 , 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, and 27, Block 3 violate Section 18-60 (a). Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Lots 6, 8, 9 21, 22, 25, and 26, Block 3 violate Section 18- 60 (b). Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, and Lots 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28, Block 3 violate Section 18-60 (d). Outlots A and B violate Section 18-60 (e) and should be combined with the abutting lots. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the city's land use plan. However, the alignment for the north-south does not comply with the city's required alignment along the Bluff Creek corridor. The proposed alignment places a sewer depth of approximately 35 feet which would result in a trench width of 70 feet or more for repairs or replacement in the future. The Bluff Creek corridor road alignment and sewer installation is more efficient and cost effective. Additionally, as proposed, the plan does not minimize grading or provide tree preservation. 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; Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 19 Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. Staff believes that the subdivision, as proposed, does not minimize grading of the site or try to maintain some semblance of the current topography and land form. Tree preservation would be enhanced with a Bluff Creek corridor road alignment by preserving additional trees in the center of the site. 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. Additionally, the proposed alignment for the north-south road does not meet the city's preferred alignment adjacent to the wetland located in the eastern boundary of the site. The alignment places a sewer depth of approximately 35 feet which would result in a trench width of 70 feet or more for repairs or replacement in the future. The Bluff Creek corridor road alignment and sewer installation is more efficient and cost effective. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will excessively impact the land form and existing wetlands and vegetation. As aligned, the roadway does not preserve any trees in the center of the project. 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 The plat needs to be revised to incorporate the roadway realignment along Bluff Creek.. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/FLOOD PLAIN ALTERATION The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to permit the alteration and excavation of land within the Bluff Creek flood plain. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: 1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: Before final plat approval, the applicant's design will have to meet the standards set for water quantity, water quality, erosion control, and general construction by the City, the watershed district, and the state. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: The development of the site is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the stormwater management plan. Through the dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor (outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 21 provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: Restoration and enhancement of the surrounding natural resources is considered an asset to the community. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Finding: The wetland areas that remain will be used as open space and a park corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: The proposed realignment of the north-south road adjacent to the Bluff Creek wetland complex will reduce the number of access points directly onto the road. This roadway will improve traffic circulation in the area. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The alteration project will protect and preserve natural and scenic features of major significance. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 22 Finding: The wetland project will protect and preserve natural and scenic features of major significance and improve the aesthetics of the area. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The development's design will provide flood protection as well as aesthetic improvements to the area which should enhance the property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: Will comply with federal, state and local requirements. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Wetland Alteration Permit (Section 20-407) When approving a wetland alteration permit the following principals shall be adhered to: 1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity may destroy or diminish the wetland. Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the high point of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The wetland located in the southwest corner of the site will also receive some fill as a result of the extension of the road from the Stone Creek Development. This wetland has been impacted by human intervention, but should be protected and preserved to the extent possible. Both wetlands will be mitigated through enhancement and extension of the wetland complex along Bluff Creek and the southern wetland. There will be no net loss of wetlands. 2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation. Finding: Through the dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor (outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the high point of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The wetland located in the southwest corner of the site will also receive some fill as a result of the extension of the road from the Stone Creek Development. The proposal Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 23 minimizes the impact of the development while at the same time replacing and enhancing the wetland complexes. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland activity and its implementation. Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the activity. Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor (outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. 5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. Through the dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor (outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the high point of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The wetland located in the southwest corner of the site will also receive some fill as a result of the extension of the road from the Stone Creek Development. The proposal minimizes the impact of the development while at the same time replacing and enhancing the wetland complexes. The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 24 "The Planning Commission recommends denial of subdivision #94-7 unless the applicant is willing to make the following revisions: 1. The applicant shall incorporate design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed Plan that are being initiated in the upcoming month. 2. The applicant shall attempt to retain the natural topographic features to preserve the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan. 3. A woodland management plan will be required as part of the platting process. The tree survey shall be overlaid on the grading plan to verify the preservation of trees. The landscaping plan shall be revised to incorporate the correct forestation and replacement planting calculations. 4. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 5. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 6. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 8. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. This would also include the private drive. 10. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 11. Submit plans to Fire Marshal showing the connection to either existing or proposed streets at the north end or south end of the proposed road. 12. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet. Hydrants on submitted plan range from 160 feet to 600 feet. Submit new revised plan for approval. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 25 14. The applicant shall revise the plat to correct deficiencies in the plat design: six lots do not meet the minimum lot frontage requirements at the building setback line: Lot 5, Block 1, Lots 8, 12, 14, 15, 22, and 23, Block 3; seven Lots are accessed via a private drive that staff can not make the appropriate findings to support: Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, and 23, Block 3; and violations of section 18-60. 15. The landscaping plan shall be revised to incorporate the following changes: a. Substitute Arborvitae (White Cedar) for all Balsam Fir. Cedars will do better with our soils and the location. b. Add Kentucky coffeetree to boulevard plantings instead of using so many Lindens to improve specie diversity. c. Substitute Larch for White Pine near proposed pond. Depending on how close they are to the pond, larch will do better than white pine if there's ever any overflow. d. Mix the white pine at the entrance with some Austrian pine since there's always the chance of a white pine blister rust infection. Austrian pine is the best pine for clay soils. e. Mix up the monoculture of Red Oak - there are 25 in a row! Intersperse with Bur Oak. 16. Park and Recreation conditions: a. The land bound by Bluff Creek on the east, the railroad on the south, the extension of Stone Creek Drive on the west, and the arm of Bluff Creek on the north be shown as parkland. Said property to be purchased through a combination of park dedication fee credit and cash. b. The open space corridor along the creek shall lie adjacent to the road. Compensation for any open space lying between the wetland and the subject road's right of way would be made under this scenario. c. The alignment of the 8 ft. bituminous trail be amended to reflect the direction given the applicant by staff specifically that the trail shall depart the creek corridor enter the parkland and meet the road extension at the southern wetland prior to its connection with the railroad underpass. Said trail to be constructed with the first phase of improvements completed by the applicant with a lump sum cost for the trail being reimbursed by the city. Note: The applicant shall supply the city with three quotes for the construction of said trail with the final Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 26 alignment being staked for approval by the City's Park and Recreation and Engineering Departments prior to construction. 17. 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. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the City Council 18. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 19. Wetland buffer areas are required around the wetlands. All buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked by the applicant 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. 20. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 100-foot buffer around Bluff Creek and a 10 to 30 foot buffer with a minimum average of 20 feet around the tributary to Bluff Creek. 21. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water 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 storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins. Individual storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 22. 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. 23. The applicant shall comply with the wetland fill/excavation and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. Mitigation work shall Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 27 be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in future phases of the project. 24. The applicant shall apply for an obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 25. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi- lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided to the Building Official before the City issues a building permit for the lot. 26. 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 width shall be a minimum of 20 feet. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 27. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within right-of-way areas. 28. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the high water level calculated according to the shoreland ordinance guidelines. 29. The proposed storm water ponds shall be designed with 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. 30. The applicant shall submit a development plan which indicates the type of dwelling proposed as well as lowest floor and garage floor elevations. Individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each wooded lot prior to issuance of a building permit. 31. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. 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. 32. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. The fees will be determined by staff upon approval of the construction plans. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Page 28 33. 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. 34. The northerly private driveway shall be redesigned and constructed to a full city street/cul-de-sac. 35. The north/south street shall be relocated east to follow the westerly edge of the Bluff Creek Corridor. 36. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8-inch sanitary sewer line to the westerly edge of the plat along the Bluff Creek tributary (Lots 22, 23, 25, 26 and 27) 37. The northerly proposed storm pond shall be a permanent ponding area and enlarged in the future to accommodate runoff from the 8-acre parcel to the north. 38. The north/south street shall be extended through to the frontage road within three years after the final plat is approved. The applicant shall provide the city with a financial security to guarantee the roadway extension will be completed. 39. The developers and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessment resulting from the City's public improvement project including but not limited to hearing requirements and claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 40. The two storm water ponds located in the east central portion of the site shall be combined and the trail rerouted in accordance to the Park and Recreation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. Wetland Map 2. Development Review Application 3. Narrative Document, Preliminary Plat Application 4. Bluff Creek Corridor Street Alignment Option 5. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 8/5/94 6. Memo from Mark Littfin to Bob Generous dated 7/22/94 7. Letter from Richard J. Pilon to Robert Generous dated 7/26/94 8. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List Al 7 (N) X. . - `J i - ---- — - 10-12P f -' A9-11(1) t `~-- . (N) —_. " . ,,4 A10-12(2),! ., 10-209W ,4l 10- A10-11)5(1 � A10-13(2 A10-14(1) A11 13(1) (A) ^ '- (A) f: • :,(N) •is A9-12(1) - '-- ~ - �__.(A)_`�- Al 0. 13(1 ,, .. d ! __mow -- 30±2.35(2 QC4 2 .. ; - j. A14-1(1 ;- • At(A�C2� Al 3 1) • A ; )( 1.'13,', SCHOOL SITE ' w�. - * A15-2(1) r Cill.A14—I(3) _ 1 * * T r (A) • ) y l ' --r =OJECT LOCATION 7(3) 1;4 (Q) Z 1 1 A :-, 1) L 1q-21C --'`' ( A15A8(1j t � , Al -5 ) Sf A16-7(2) A , i 1 I i d A _ ; ... l( / e.6 -7( ) ) i A16-7(4 , (p) �T i A115- C > , � s(U) . , I . r - _ ` -- ii `. . . A) e ".7",,,,-,Y419! d 9(1)A1 2(3) % i 1t �, ir.7-6.:',L.c.t,,..),‘,.,5--..1 A6-i2(2) 'l! a cA ( C _, ,1 r•YRS �`� / 1I14-13 (1)'.„ _... . ' A15=113(2) ' • \ .,..•,,„3-- tr.- -,3--, -z' .„-- , 114 V `' _ii----_,.) 3 4- A15-10(3) i �j� f:f' ?,"'\.Y s , i. i r ,.Y` fj J, yu) �� f, ` LYMAN ,.. ;. ii \\:' A22- 1) ., ' � h • �ir47 i A s, i \ „..././y,.... ... . .. i 1 Nat €Y t ; !, r = C".".4....1 ';. (A) ! i N. (A)''''','.'.,' "*.,)44,4".'-, 2 O 1 ...... \ ,a ! j''..rj • . 1 '1 �► A22-6(1) ..-f • ' _ ,- / LEGEND likbDENOTES WETLAND 4 ,- - _ •.,_.,•-• \ A22-12(1) \, 1 HMENT 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Heritage Development OWNER: Fee Owner Heritage DevelQpment ADDRESS: 450 East County Road n ADDRESS: 450 East County Road D St. Paul, MN 55117 St. Paul, MN 55117 TELEPHONE (Day time) 481-0017 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. X Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance �j J 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. x Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. X Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP/SP RNA CNAR/WIP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. y Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 2,325.00 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" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed.'1;11e appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Chanhassen First Addition of Chanhassen LOCATION East of Timber-wood Fstata's, 1-act of Bluff C ccic LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the southeast quarter of Section 15, Township 116, north, range 23 west of the 5th principal meridian, west of the centerline of the creek. PRESENT ZONING A? REQUESTED ZONING RSP PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Agricultural REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Singi e Family Rp�i�ontial REASON FOR THIS REQUEST_Preliminary plat per subdivision rode c~haptPr 18, refer to plans and narrative document. 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 fcr 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 approvaUpermit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the origi al doc - ent returned to C. Hall Records. , r 745 e Signa ure • Appli ant 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. NARRATIVE DOCUMENT 39± Acre Heritage First Addition to Chanhassen Single Family Subdivision PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION July 18, 1994 Prepared For: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Developer: HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 4.50 East County Road D St. Paul, MN 55117 Prepared By: RLK Associates, Ltd. 922 A1ainstreet Hopkins, MN 55343 (612) 933-0972 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL FOR THE 39 ACRE HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 50 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION July 18, 1994 • Introduction In the western part of the City of Chanhassen on the south side of Highway 5 and east of the Timberwood Estates subdivision is a 39±acre parcel referred to as the Heritage First Addition to Chanhassen Subdivision. The general boundaries for this property are the west tributary of Bluff Creek to the north,the main channel of Bluff Creek to the east,the Twin City and Western railroad to the south and the Hans Hagen single family subdivision known as Stone Creek and Timberwood Estates to the west. Directly to the north and northeast is the property known as the Chanhassen Corporate Center, of which Heritage Development controls the parcels directly to the north and east of Bluff Creek. The single family subdivision proposed for this 39 acre parcel is consistent with the Comprehensive 2000 land use plan, zoning ordinance, in addition to being in compliance with city policies on tree protection reforestation, stormwater control and regulations governing Bluff Creek a Minnesota DNR protected water course. Goals of the Project Heritage Development through the efforts of John Dobbs the project manager for the developer,has consistently envisioned a quality single family development within the subject parcel. The City of Chanhassen is one of the premier residential communities within the metropolitan area and the anticipated development on the undulating terrain overlooking the Bluff Creek corridor will be a compatible development to the Stone Creek subdivision, protect the views and property investment of Timberwood Estates. The plan will respect the open space and ponding requirements of Bluff Creek. • Specific goals of this submission are: • Create a 50 lot subdivision with a variety of lot sizes ranging from 15,000 to 28,000 square feet with the average lot size of 19,800. • Provide a range of housing options for moderate to middle income families wishing to locate in Chanhassen. • Develop the subject parcel consistent with Chapter 18 -Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code. • • Provide a quality residential subdivision which will coordinate installation of the infrastructure with the public right-of-way,facilitate a transportation route north from the Stone Creek Subdivision and incorporate the Bluff Creek trail through the 39 acres. • To protect the Bluff Creek corridor and improve the water quality of the Bluff Creek Watershed by providing ponding areas to collect all storm water runoff. Currently the majority of the site which is in a farmed condition flows directly into the wetland and creek basin. 1 • Coordinate the grading of this site with the trunk line sanitary sewer required to service the school north of this site. Preliminary Plat Application In addition to the preliminary plat application,the developer is also requesting the City of Chanhassen consider the following applications necessary for this plat to be approved with the accompanying fees: Application Fee Fee Subdivision $400.00 $400.00 +$15.00/Lot(50x$15.00) 750.00 750.00 Wetland Alteration Permit 275.00 275.00 Conditional Use Permit Alteration of Areas within the flood plain 400.00 Rezoning from A-2 to RSF 500.00 Total $2,325.00 Additional submittal material to supplement this application: • Completed Application Fee. • Narrative describing the development. • Written consent of all fee title property owner. • Legal description of the property. • Check for$2,325.00. • Twenty six plan sheets showing the overall site development consisting of: Sheet 1: Cover Sheet and Existing Conditions Sheet 2: Site Plan and Preliminary Plat Sheet 3: Grading Plan Sheet 4: Utility Plan Sheet 5: Landscape/Woodland Restoration Plan Sheet 6: Tree Survey • Reductions at 8 1/2 x 11 of plan sheets with transparencies. • Wetland classification, identification and delineation report prepared by Franklin J. Svoboda and Associates dated June 14, 1994. The property owner list and legal description to be utilized for this preliminary plat submittal have previously been submitted in the December 6, 1993 Chanhassen Corporate Center Development. Heritage Development Company will be the principal developer for the 39 acre site. Mr. John Dobbs will serve as the principal contact with the City of Chanhassen on this development. Heritage Development and Mr. Dobbs have extensive experience in producing quality single family residential development throughout the Twin Cities area. 2 Site planning, surveying, civil engineering and landscape architecture services will be provided by RLK Associates, Ltd. John Dietrich, ASLA and Jeannene Krone will serve as the principal contacts for the City on these issues. RLK Associates has extensive experience in developing industrial and commercial sites throughout the metropolitan area and specifically within Chanhassen. Selected sites within Chanhassen where RLK has assisted developers in the site plan approval are the Target development, Chanhassen Business Center and Kindercare. Project Description The project area is located south and west of Bluff Creek, is oriented on a north/south axis and occupies approximately 39 acres. Currently the north and east property line is the center line of Bluff Creek. The property is currently in an agricultural state for the majority of the site with a wooded area on the south central portion and a ponding area on the southern most portion of the site adjacent to the Twin Cities and western railroad. Existing on site are three delineated wetlands which total 5.7 acres or 14%of the site. Wetland basin #3 occupies approximately 2,700 square footage is a perched ponding area, is of low quality and is marginally considered a wetland. It is proposed to mitigate and relocate this wetland at a 2:1 ratio. Any wetlands to be impacted will be mitigated at 2:1 ratio in accordance with City, State and Federal standards. North of the 39 acre site is an 8 acre site projected for 26 townhome units controlled by Heritage Development. This lot is not proposed to be developed at this time. Prior to the full build out of the 39 acres, the roadway servicing the residential subdivision will connect to the East/West Frontage Road north of the 8 acre lot. The east/west frontage road is proposed to be developed by the City of Chanhassen in 1995 which will connect to Galpin Boulevard and service the new elementary school site. Located on the south side of the 8 acre lot is a proposed storm water ponding area which will be designed to accommodate the runoff from the northern portion of the 39 acre site in addition to the 8 acre lot. Prior to the final development of the property projected to be service by the storm water pond and a comprehensive plan for the acre lot will be prepared. Northeast of the site is a 20.3 acre parcel scheduled for approximately 130 townhome units of a medium density residential development. Heritage Development also controls this parcel and is hopefully to eventually develop this 20.3 acre parcel in the near future with a residential land use. Background Heritage Development originally submitted a concept PUD submission on February 16, 1994. The concept PUD was submitted in order to provide a higher quality development vs a standard preliminary plat application. The opportunity to be flexible in the square footage requirements of the lots would enable the City to realize greater opportunities in the location of park and trail facilities. The February 16, 1994 application contained 56 residential lots and was heard before the Planning Commission on March 16, 1994. The following chart briefly outlines the sequence of hearing which pertained to the concept PUD. • Staff recommended approval based upon conditions as stated in their staff report. • Planning commissions denied the concept PUD on March 16, 1994. • Concept Plan presented to the City Council on April 11, 1994 which tabled request. 3 • Concept PUD resubmitted on May 12, 1994 with the following changes: • 56 lot subdivision reduced to 53 lots. • All wetlands delineated and tree canopy identified. • Provided concept grading plan with site plan City Council heard the revised 53 lot subdivision on May 23, 1994 and approved the concept PUD with the conditions stated in staff report. • Resulted in concept approval of 53 lot subdivision. Subsequent to the May 23, 1994 City Council meeting, Heritage Development continued to meet with staff to develop a site plan which would meet the objectives of the Bluff Creek design charette and as requested by planning commission and City Council. Numerous meetings between staff were held and additional site plans were prepared by Heritage which explored reduced lot size, lot location and area greatly in excess of the required 2.0 acres park dedication. Unfortunately there was not an agreement between the City Staff and the developer on the PUD subdivision design criteria, hence a preliminary plat application consistent with and exceeding the subdivision ordinance is being submitted. The final product of the past six months is a preliminary plat application per code which addresses the comments received when the concept PUD plan was progressing through the City approval process. The attached preliminary plat application has considered the commentary offered by staff, planning commission and City Council during their review of the concept PUD. The intention of the developer is to continue to coordinate the installation of the public infrastructure (sanitary sewer) and city wide open space and recreation concern, while also developing the site per existing codes and ordinances. Heritage Development has been patient in holding off on submitting an application for this site, however, in order to have any possibility to grade the site in 1994, an application had to be submitted. It is the intent of the applicant to be heard at the following meetings. • August 17, 1994 -Planning Commission • August 23, 1994 -Park and Recreation Commission • September 12, 1994 - City Council Section I: Comprehensive Plan Compliance The following items in Section I outlines how the 50 lot subdivision is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive guide plan. Land Use The land has historically been in a agricultural state and recently became available for development when the MUSA district was expanded to include this area and the Stone Creek subdivision provided access from the south and the future east/west frontage road was approved for a 1995 construction. The property is guided for low density single family residential with a lot density of 1:2 to 4 units per acre. Figure 1 identifies the 2000 land use plan with the 39 acre site identified. The plan identifies the entire parcel for single family development with the proposed parks/open space east of Bluff Creek. Based upon this plan, the entire 39 acres should be guided for residential development and protection of the wetland basin east of the creek utilized for public purposes. The average density proposed in this 50 unit subdivision is 1.56 units/acres. The average density of the site is calculated with the wetland and proposed park dedication areas deleted. 4 Transportation Historically the east/west movement south of trunk Highway 5 is not accounted for. A collector roadway south of Highway 5 between TH 41 and Audubon Road has been petitioned and is currently planned for a 1995 construction. At this time, the east/west road will connect Galpin Boulevard east to the McGlynn Property This east west collector will service the new middle school at Galpin and TH 5 and the Chanhassen Corporate Center property. A residential collector between the Stone Creek Subdivision and the east/west frontage road proposed for a 1995 construction will be completed by the approval of this subdivision. It is the developers intent to connect to the east/west frontage road prior to the full development of this site. Utilities Expansion of the NIUSA service area west of Audubon Road and Bluff Creek requires the City to plan for the installation of trunk line water mains and sanitary sewer. These have been accomplished in the Upper Bluff Creek Feasibility Report and arc under construction To date the trunk line utilities are present at the southwest corner of the site. The City is committed to extending the trunk line sanitary north through the 39 acre parcel or within the creek bed of Bluff Creek. The developer is committed to working with the city on placement of the sanitary sewer within the right-of-way in order to protect the Bluff Creek basin as a natural amenity. The development plans currently identify the sanitary sewer in the street right-of-way. It should be noted extension of the trunk sanitary sewer construction either north in the right-of-way or east toward the creek basin, would remove a large percentage of the trees within this area of the site. To this extent the woodland restoration plan has identified the area which the public right-of-way sanitary sewer would disrupt and requests the trees necessary for woodland restoration be the responsibility of the City. It is the developers position that these trees would be removed whether or not this preliminary plat moves forward and the land owner should not be responsible for replacing the trees removed due to a public improvement project which was approved prior to the landscape and tree preservation code being added to the subdivision code. Open Space/Recreation The Bluff Creek corridor is generally defined as a linear community park. Approval of this subdivision will facilitate the construction of an 8' wide bituminous trail paralleling the wetland and creek as shown on the landscape plan. Additionally a six foot wide sidewalk is proposed for the west side of the street. Outstanding opportunities exist for the trail system to be extended north of the railroad tracks through a designated 20' wide park dedication corridor. The trail system will bisect mature wooded areas, quality type 2/3 wetlands, stream environments, open space and ponding districts. Development of this subdivision is consistent with the designated land use/open space requirements as identified in the comprehensive plan. 5 Section II: Answers to Previous Staff Report: The concept PUD submitted and approved did not provide a guarantee nor a solid basis for Heritage Development to proceed under the zoning of a PUD. Based on upon the developers review of the commentary presented at the meetings held to discuss the merits of the PUD,it became evident the perspective of the planning commission and City Council was to not ease restrictions on lot size or increase the density on portions of the site in order to gain a larger park or trail corridor are for public use. The resulting 50 lot subdivisions will be compatible in nature to both Stone Creek and Timberwood Estates. Protection of the creek basin,wetlands and improved water quality will also be a direct city wide benefits of this subdivision. The plan sheets as previously described identify the layout,grading,ponding and landscape/woodland restoration of the site. The overall plan composition has attempted to incorporate the recommendations presented in the staff report prepared for the concept PUD dated March 16, 1994 and revised May 19, 1994. The following responses are directed at the conditions of approval as stated in the prepared staff reports. 1. The design charette was conducted and property owner adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor were not asked to attend to date a follow-up meeting has not been held nor have minutes of the charette been disturbed. 2. The minimum buffer strip width has been established at a 20'dimension throughout the plat,the park dedication requirements of 2.0 acres will be provided throughout the perimeters of the site. There is a variety of microenvironments the Bluff Creek corridor trail will navigate such as, mature woodlands, wetlands and steep slopes encompass the trail corridor. 4. The stormwater ponds as designed on site will pre-treat the stormwater runoff in order to meet the requirements of the Bluff Creek watershed district. If should be noted,the east central pond has been sized to accommodate runoff from the Timberwood Estates which currently flows onto the site and into the Wetland and Bluff Creek untreated. 5. Deleted 6. Deleted The comprehensive plan has guided this area for single family low density residential development with densities between 1.2-4 units per acre. The current 50 lot subdivision with an average lot size of approximately 20,000 s.f. is more in character with the Timbenvood Estates vs a standard subdivision of 15,00 s.f. 7. Agree 8. The developer will work with City Staff on the placement of a sanitary sewer location to the Timbenvood Estates. Location of the stream bed leading to Timberwood Estates should be closely reviewed due to the impact a sanitary sewer will have on the remaining trees. Perhaps the sewer should be run north from the Stone Creek Subdivision. 9. The north/south road will connect to the east/west frontage road prior to full build out. 6 10. Curvalinear streets have been utilized in the site design, however,the stand of oaks at the central portion of the site are not to be saved due to the sewer grades and need to provide residential lots on both sides of the street in order to make this site economically feasible. 11. Deleted 12. Agree 13. Agree 14. Agree 15. Agree 16. Private drives have been utilized in two locations in addition to two lots with flag lots. The private drives have been utilized on the west side of the street in order to provide a variety of lots and lot widths next to Timberwood Estates. Previous site designs concentrated the private drives as to the road. The 50 lot subdivision provide a much more creative roadway and site design. 17. Provided 18. Provided - Refer to Sheet 5 Landscape Plan and Sheet 6 Tree Survey 19. All lots are designed according to the subdivision code without the need for variances. 20. Provided 21. Agree 22. Provided as part of the submittal 23. Comments from DNR letter dated March 2, 1994 1. All permits for stormwater alterations, storm sewer outfalls,etc. which will require a DNR permit will complied with. 2. All stormwater will be routed through the stormwater ponds. 3. The developer will address the stormwater pond with the adjacent property owners for components or easements. All wetland areas will have a minimum of a 20' buffer strip which is consistent with City requirements on ag./urban wetlands. All response to Minnesota DNR letter to be utilized. 7 4. The 100 year flood plain elevation fluctuates depending upon the Boonestro report or the Barr Engineering studies. The Heritage Development subdivision plan has utilized elevations provided by Barr Engineering which establishes the 100 year flood plain elevations. All structures have the lowest flood elevation a minimum of 2'above the flood elevation. 5. All lots within 300 feet of the center line of the creek have a square footage of 20,000 s.f. a. Slopes along the north portion of the site have been modified to provide access through the site and house pads designed to fit with the topography. The Bluffs directly adjacent to the creek corridor along the northeast edge of the site have not been modified and all existing vegetation will remain. b. The upper grades of the knoll have been taken down in order to balance the cut and fill of the site. Reduction in the existing grades will also reduce the visual impact to the Timberwood Estates. c. The plan comply with the Minnesota DNR requirements for setbacks. d. The homes along the east side of the north/south road will be constructed as walk-outs and built into the hillside. Reforestation and planting of trees to be in compliance with the tree ordinance will be accomplished between the residential structures, ponding areas and Bluff Creek. 6. All appropriate erosion controls will be installed prior to any construction commencing. 7. All dewatering permits will be followed. 8. The delineated wetlands according to the report by Frank Svoboda and Associates, has located wetlands and did research the Corp of Engineers data and all State and Federal agencies. It is anticipated a Nationwide permit will be pursued in order to mitigate the wetlands proposed to be relocated. All wetland replacement will be performed at a 2:1 ratio. Currently it is estimated a total of square footage of wetland will be necessary to mitigate on site. 9. All stonnwater permits will be pulled prior to construction activities commencing. 24. Agree 25. Provided as part of the submittal 26. The southern trail termus has continued along the creek and along the southern edge of the site. This placement takes advantage of highest quality woodland found on the site and maintains a natural environment trail. 27. A 50'easement south of the public roadway to the railroad track will cover the edge of the stormwater ponds which will become the responsibility of the City. If a trail easement is required, the developer will comply. Currently a 40'NSP easement occupies 40 of the proposed 50'easements. 8 28. A mid trail connection has been provided to the public right-of-way as shown between Block 1 and 2. This access will also function as a maintenance corridor and easement for the stormwater system. 29. Final placement of the trail should consider crossing the creek prior to the conveyance of the two stream tributaries based upon the slope and significant tree locations. The developer and consultants have walked the site and will continue to advocate placement of the trail north of the creek along the northeast side of this site. 30. The developer will be pursuing trail credit fees for construction of the required trail. The plan identifies a minus of 20' buffer area outside the delineated wetland area and does identify this area as park dedication. 31. The trail consider establishes the perimeter of the site for this purpose. The edge of this 39 acre site offers the most dramatic views and variety of natural environments found on this site. Nodcs of recreational creativity i.e.: picnic tables, can be accommodate in a number of areas as illustrated on the landscape plan. 32. A 100' building setback will be provided. The two lots of Block 1 Lot 1 and Block 2 Lot 6 will require a slightly more creative homes in order to meet the required setback. 33. Agree 9 DEVELOPMENT DATA Comprehensive Land Use Plan Existing Low Density Residential 1.2-4 units per acre Parks/Open Space North Low Density Residential East Parks Open Space West Low Density Residential/Large Lot Residential South Park Open Space/Office/Industrial Zoning Existing A-2 Agricultural Estate District Proposed RSF Single Family Residential North A-2 Agricultural East A-2 Agricultural West RR Rural Residential RSF Single Family Residential South PUD Site Area 39.6 Acres Park Dedication 2.0 Acres (1 acre/25 lots) Wetlands 5.7 Acres Net Area 31.9 Acres Proposed Units 50 Density 1.56 Dwelling Units/Acre Average Lot Area 19800 Square Feet R.O.W. 4.2 Acres Zoning Standards Lot Area Minimum 15,000 Sq. Ft. Lot Width Minimum Interior 90 feet Frontward Setback 30 feet Sidevard Setbacks Twp. 10 feet Private Drive 20 feet Rear Yard Setback 30 feet Drainage and Utility Easements (Unless otherwise noted on plan) Front/Rear 10 feet Side 5 feet Wetland Mitigated Area Calculated ata 2:1 ratio 5,200 s.f. .7 4 ` 41,/7 .■ • amu. '.- A 1111111111111 -mi •`L a.•:y "• 6•L. •.Vti �,.% :�V ..V v- r t / I :.L.:,:. 0.....•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:-• ••mons •••■•'sew '1 ' •.ti,`s.'. . ,i ... • • • • • ••■•■•••• �. ..�,• - ' L:.•:.�: ailligialladarm , aftgbElmetagOVIKKV1MErir ilr-V .-...•.1 `s, , ......\ ........ \\11114; tiohh, ` HERITAGE-1". i ' M: �„ r`•••. ..-. * 14)7 •rte'\ PR �\ `` ��1.� �::I ITE m, eit,././0 • X143; ��� ! �� �_ yam• •✓... fit\ ` \ \ ,. --•• .. s„--, , \ . ..,:•,,, ____ .....1,7;t::-..:-::::: IV -.-.-cd. .c ,,,00010111r 41:pr i 4..,istk!.• ilig maw- - \ . :OP , -_...y\‘''''4. 40- . ."...c.r • NC�` — , • 'ZLL�, , 111 M_ t CITY OF CHANHASSEN FIGURE , Ri_lit. 2) 55343 933-0972 YEAR 2000 `ASSOCIATES LTD./ talc(612)953 7/18/94 LAND USE PLAN 25-8520010 25-8520020 25-8520030 MITC'HEL & MARY KRAUSE JAMES L & LINDA J LEIRDAHL MARK & JULIE TAINTOR 2380 TLMBERWOOD DR 2350 TIMBERWOOD DR 7481 SARATOGA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 25-8520040 25-8520050 25-8520060 LAYTON & LINDA ZELLMAN CURTIS & JANICE OLSON GREGORY & JULIE MAANUM 2290 TIMBER WOOD DR 1961 130TH LN 6520 MISTRAL LANE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 COON RAPIDS MN 55448 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 25-8520070 25-8520080 25-8520090 MARK J FOSTER & RICHARD D & MARY A FRASCH DAVID GESTACH KAREN S OLSSON8000 ACORN LN 8001 ACORN LN 8020 ACORN LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 25-8520100 25-8520110 25-8520120 RICHARD M CZECK & JAMES R & DEBRA ANN LANO STEPHEN D MCCURRY & PATRICIA A FOLZ-CZECK 2060 OAKWOOD RDG BRIDGET HAEFNER 8011 ACORN LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 16780 NORTH MANOR RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 • EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 25-8520130 25-8520149 25-8520150 STACEY R RICKERT & ALVA BRUCE & JAMES L & COLLEEN C MICHELLE M RHEAULT KRISTINA JOHNSON DOCKENDORF 2040 OAKWOOD RDG 2051 OAKWOOD RDG 2061 OAKWOOD RDG CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 25-8520160 25-8520170 25-8520180 JAMES M & JOANN E JANCIK DAVID G & GAIL E MCCOLLUM AGHA TAHIR M KHAN & 2050 TIMBER WOOD DR 2048 TIMBERWOOD DR PATRICIA M KHAN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 2040 RENAISSANCE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 25-8520190 25-8520200 25-8520210 STANLEY E & CHRISTINE E RUD ROBERT W& ROBERTA L LAWSON GERARD E & BONNIE T 2030 RENAISSANCE CT 2041 RENAISSANCE CT MURKOWSKI CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 2051 RENAISSANCE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 25-8520220 25-8520230 25-8520240 CURTIS E & JEAN F BEUNING ANDREW & SUSAN RICHARDSON MARK A & NANCY E BIELSKI 2381 TIMBERWOOD DR 8120 PINEWOOD CIR 8140 PINEWOOD CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 25-8520250 25-8520260 25-8520270 RICHARD & ELIZABETH WILLIAM P & LANA L MILLER JAMES J & BONITA J ROEDER NYE LARSON 8121 PINEWOOD CIR 8101 PINEWOOD CIR 8141 PINEWOOD CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 25-8520280 25-8520290 25-8520300 GREGORY H & JILL K PERRILL CRAIG & MARY HARRINGTON GREGORY & B VANDERVORSTE 2101 TIMBERWOOD DR 8140 MAPLEWOOD TER 8141 MAPLEWOOD TER CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 25-8520310 25-8520320 25-8520330 GREGORY G & JULIE K SORENSON DENNIS R & JEAN S ROLLINS JEFFREY G HEINZ & 8121 MAPLEWOOD TER 2081 TIMBERWOOD DR JOAN M PADRNOS-HEINZ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 2071 TIMBERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 25-8520340 25-8520350 25-8520360 BRADLEY J FOLEY & ROBERT S & NANCY J KROCAK DAVE J & KAREN K MAENKE JUDITH A WERNER 2051 TIMBERWOOD DR 2041 TIMBERWOOD DR 2061 TJMBERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 25-8520370 25-8520380 25-8520390 & 25-8520400 RANDLE & TERESA CORFMAN CITY OF CHANHASSEN RICHARD HARTUNG & 2031 TIMBERWOOD DR WALLACE OTTO CHANHASSEN MN 55317 400 OAK ST S WACONIA MN 55387 25-4520010 25-4520020 & 25-4520030 25-0151700 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC SHAMROCK PROPERTY PARTNERS BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY C/O GRAND MET TAX DEPT ONE MCGLYNN DRIVE 1000 HESSE FARM RD 200 S 6TH ST MS:1843 CHANHASSEN INN 55317 CHASKA MN 55318 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 - 25-0150300, 25-0150400 & 25-0151100 25-0150600 25-0151300 HI-WAY 5 PARTNERSHIP LAWRENCE & F RASER THOMAS & MARIAN SCHMITZ C/O DENNIS DIRLAM 8210 GALPIN BLVD 8190 GALPIN BLVD 15241 CREEKSIDE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 25-0151400 DALE F & MARCAA WANNINGER 8170 GALPIN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 • II( l'• cn cn cn cn cn cn x =xx mmmm mm m m mmmm m !m 1 — " ` ZCo� v�7C Z acs O►HT1 A W N _ I_ .• _4��� < DDnno 3 Z>N Z DjD m O R1 -F'�:a- tile ,' t >00-n - �, Cm>e,r 0 0 0 0 O m - 11,4 N rn �Q m �'�m 11 11 TI"1 �1 � ' '4 !� •,.:1 m zd'^xm 5-0zi sno O1 Of O1 01 1 i1VvVNN "s tir xD 2 ZCm m MI ;v2 p m�T (17\ m�T v 1!! r. , 1 z Zw 0 O - - p<C M d r - ; ' rn mm • ' rm -.x1' -IrCO�VIm-1 X Ate, ,--,,,,n %«i�-4� c o 20 20 x 171 o z m 70 z as K� NM f .n my� r -, --Lam jv'. so CP It: D — p cnn"C2;r2cn ts,'� j� . ~ 23 i mDII-zZnmi 14- i .1 ;;:-.:•:_„,.--::: L�_ r Z� Z ...... z D -' O i . SRI • RI (n i f 1.---------.,..1 1 I 614 ` I ▪ 1��l j O fj 1 T I eemom 1 1 /• cn W N• = I N n 9m 3:i I mO so rrn ZO i ra O-, < I �I ... m i i s.,12 0 i 6 0 3 C) rn 0 ------- ------ i ------------------- -----lo, - i 1 _ XI mi Pl" ^ \ ' O Z� _ N \ rP ---, . . Zi, /"..\ r', - K.> \ yi - i ,— I z ...<,, on -..-_----:.;,.:,..-•!.•.-7_-_-,. 74.,..: '.' ./ I%X.0" _t------ . ....._3-:, ..-..-Cf•— -' i. ..i. — I—' '‘. .j-T-: .! ‘‘1-';'.ift''',1...-. '.'1 '.'lr-.__-- -_-------7 ,-*,-...:-,--. r.,,,...ei'f,>e e.s. I— M 7-0, . 2, ,:,,, ,, . . . > 4,/ , , ,....,7 r fE Jr i rI d i _:-• ii! iX ; Q E IJ1 I I 5 • III 1 i. {III JO...a]] ;I 1 Li 11 ij i j .. -- 1 -) • ,J9 .� g \ `_0 .,,,,., 111 X11111111111 VIII iiiir,! . b SII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illi f ~^ \ s' !: \ 4 i \ 1111111IIII �� 1� '�! =• � 1:; = ; ill iuiun I . :ill`- ill . i illier - /I -1��: 1; : 3811111 1$,€,isti; al 6' 1 aaaa�sa, 1 R-1 : ago°°.' • '• • J' `� -- 1118.iR - a& /I s t >;,i 4.11mR •r40. m 1 b� PI> —' I , — g@'nTum°n! AS 1,• Di ]in T I ., y �i aC ..m :«b m.,3 O.( m DX - i !21.3 tc lc = a b 9 ,.,+ :.,; 13 $„1Q 9 z Ti▪ rn :4 im. .- k\ . I 7 I s.;-,ti _, Y jf m 1 1 -W.- \'dre-1:\1 \ 1 M (n l :'tf $ $ o'aS i Ya $; ' irl" i I I w a . y Z �kCom. �/ i o • i popj/ . ' 77 T8 176 FT Z ii I ¢ {{ ; t ,..\ i Z s 11w 172»se FT , V I ( p $ t cn -i _ usn� I Z C I R C) I , ¢- 1 ' 3 3 $ms a $ Z I € o . 1 Iii „ ,,,.._ 7 4in,i1 ! 1 IARlg $ i . !!!/ i \ ' I, •� - � IiIt (('R$ � \ %4 i ____." ,,%.,41W1-fe*---7'S. \ \ ‘, - \ .c-... ir#,& AtA.....-11-%. Nio,. -___.: Ir.„.......". 4417411 ‘. 411,4* ' , ' , ;\ s l* ,i\• / '• 710i64 � % .1 1 MITI e” aSDt `, nn 14j p � tt mss. I y.9 ,�7�jji/{1 ,• - \ „ '/�\ /moi'‘''.0 :4:; - i i 1 AO I. g b ,-, ! 'LE I , - , ,-, 4 h-1 /10044,00v. - , ,J -- , , . , A i -4-> 'I ip t, Ir. ..� '' '� '`+il ' ,�Ie _ i -- Ili g is ria, m P!)4 g ;:-.1:2) AMEN ilingliffi i / ii 1 CI M gfiEr vrr 1L' ' 1�' I' YY +ter ► I 0 1 %takWit" NV om ss) a s 114- stINVI-1°-- ',A\ i'!1) I - ' 6•x:0- !0 4/ . . , --1-V-010 '77‘0/11111ii . 11! --..\ ,,,,,,.0,..„„„,Air r! •‘ pipp 1 ,...110 11 fil gr ," Willill 11 1 Wil 1 % sv.,,,,, - 7 NS 4, • 1/111, *a x 1 qi Qr 41 a 1 ...... -, .\A., -,:me- r-, Arteey: :. is II hi iii isi,,t:li i 1 Ini - .4„. ,,."4,,," .k.-.,.., , 0 A AAA t � a riA ■ii ,4:......17-A..... , i 1 li li ij a in i i 8 . ' , i} Yl g Ihil / ro lip Tr ! A' l'. 1 . , 14:::i. . t i-,/,:.• i ."U.. i.%� sa k isss saasss�assx5 A % Ina fl iii'= #f t# € 2: -^� , fi( / /,rte a:s xs Sass ats ssxSetstas» ' i ' 4 4.---,4 4 s4='4'444 ss ; ii !i 44 4 444 4 4444444 44 n H \ teIMMINIMW tli i a . . %imbr-- - i � * \_ 1104„,,, iiiv) , . , ,,,„ ---,. ...„„..,. or/ b6 r[t r ,.„..,,.., I N t t ii ij_:__ i t -IV i - /mlb ,*Pi, „ . Y !iI oI jo ' m z ; ; ' 11111\\* \) • n 3 i To iipt,>, , i .c ; , I lig 1 pii 1 Hg i„s,,, ice ' ; `; � ,� • � 1 g gi I pi' • 1 , . , .• 1 11 I led lc 1 51 4p/ '' ii i/� , li gIi It , r iii • ES = r---- I e';Id Q / i g 1 ; Irlis !IP ! — / * / : :sill a • i, ,MITI ,11111 rm z1 xiRia -SQA . ' l� Z 41. ialg F � 3 ; !11 i 3-2 y i! r!•_ , 111: fli !; I K 100,414:I iii II1i11+CE:Iilil - I— ,, � __ `.E\ / ! �.� = II .iii :III' l; , ••I �•�\ illi 1111 -RARE II I 1110111111 • \ ....,...,:, . . 2 "" - GE -Z'z:‘,.SGC � ,,..I..111, 1 1 Tr-, _ p �.. .� \\/), •\.t Ii .i11i gC 1 \t !Ili i11 I!tIir", �1iiri. Iffiil �;'f+l'1i O + 'I !C o I tip E Fa } , At-lk gam . Is ,i. 1 ! erYr� r. Ip II l:l hu I a 2 1, alit . , d--- + i i+ mP T �� R I I I, r.e � lit 0T I Eam . GC :3/ P, Fa,T ,_cc, �. 9,30 0 IOW•-•.; :: 1 \ :: , : g.. as 0 TI I /K.-V. i 1�1 •„ r �,_ %ion n • --: . i c :::. Eihmi ;` ��Off_ I \ 1 C I"i� 1 '�j1i'I11�;1 '9'F" ��•�Iri ,,; Imo. ;' iii I , ,, f. -- 40 e i I '3 - °IP tA (:.;"4: .- f, f ! .. •ir h l'q 1 " EE _ f. P �, s3�r O _ /•�/ •fr I i II ' I� 1 ; ! Id G1 � y1f , 1Iy Ii. 1r . ill 1 &3n � viI ' x N1p,r'i1",,1111i9 . I � I I _ 1 ! lupi OVt• y it pit; :14 L.%' t 1 Z �1; j Z ,I�i N1'.11 111,1i > ajFTi7 ' lit! .k� ;„:.,ril, d 4 g i i 1 i 1 -- �._.� tanArtnc SCALE ./ 7 maw.fa atx ASSOCUTE5 `t. D ACRIPPpt:Part af Pa Sw+.n• ?.rtr Df S.c.m•5 •o.rre'•a naru.. i...........7. J.—......•- *rid 23 not o m.55tH c,o07..rem 1:9 CE1f7n7.A110N: many. trot no....s.o 4 S_.. D •,.r m e a..ct I Not I IO .ay R.yarw.Lowe S..r...ar-.ear:n. on f N.Stan of kinsmen I Dana no I.U.dao of no.,991 A A A /n MMn oto lion.Mo.202e, / MOTES I.A Carton.aa...ar>am,a net Dann.far no n,._aw of Me arrear, �!r 1 Tho ono,On.net P.men to now r...D.e.nnta to to Dn9rt>anon ,non.. III 1(IO O.MM: T..of fM tryarar,t.S.Lake D •0404.0,(EM.eto...9.9 72 t.7) j1 0.4. M 17"717"7907I ...M aara. non.,5.novena .e(39.20 00 ILII \ .n. N i t LEGEND •-_ ----_ Q OEMC ES r CA Q omits r oMf 9. maw er eel 4C Q (EMOTES t.-MAPLE .C.- Q. 00a7Es,r PaPUA Q. apoTEs a'100 axe 0 P.-411 t Nry _.v.._. G DENOTES 26'TREE(MO•iPC S aE'E9uiwEJ'. 0 40- & [.L igtt3 �Q�a yr 0 y Ce C'''' / " -- , ' S • CC ' - • I P"f • r..i -- I -- / -- -/ EGAN, FIELD 8 NOWAK INC. SURVEYORS - 7415 Wayzata Bouie.aa Minneopous. Minnesota 55426 >.ro =On _' _A--.6. • --. • agaIli ---N.'" ''' .:\:• , : ..,. . , ' Cliir# '-h\ NI 1.43„-,, di 4b. .4 T.A . , ... . .. ,,,..,,,,j i (40,41! v - j • • • • Y.,,.;.- . \, -n \'iPM* C) , .441 , ,vff ..i.,,, , . , • XI ii; 414, ,,./Ah„ if/ l. m 1,,, kW:// N. . 0 l1 .,. - A _ 0 ritu....ti.: 1.M, ,' I I •• �! i '_'113 ' .� • , ..Ap... ., LA... I i 1 , ----tift isMistiAl,t \\ _ ! .a..__._..:.- -.-- xl .,t , �ligot\\\\ \ 4 'dalm S..G00-_,70,\\. .\' _.\\ i. E %; ;��b' rnz 0 -* ME:-,-:- iii.,; : k , 17 ji • Z • .,-/), ,,,! ,) \ \. / c ` %/'j , %g • ... I °I _ 4x .4 .:, .: /•-_,‘- / \ .. . .:, -.,./.• ,- \ iI l \ ✓, .. CITY OF til 4441 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official _ k, DATE: August 5, 1994 SUBJ: 94-8 SUB, 94-4 REZ, 94-4 WAP & 94-4 CUP (Heritage Development) I was asked to review the development plans for Heritage Development stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; JUL 19, 1994 ; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " 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 . 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 . 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 . Bob Generous August 5, 1994 Page 2 Recommendations : 1 . Revise Grading and Drainage 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 Drainage 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 . Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval . enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\heritage.bg2 il CITY OF t _., ._, CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 . . (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORATI r UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official Q'•ic 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. PLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the 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 Rambkr. 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. SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Paltry 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' SEWO WO F/ L�\ a 1 -------,--- ' -- dill , - bh_-- - -- or RLO ' ‘i Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are 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. t., PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF i bo CHANIIASSEN ,-- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 I. MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: July 22, 1994 SUBJ: Heritage First Addition - Heritage Development Company Planning Case: 94-8 Sub, 94-4 RE2, 94-4 WAP and 94-4 CUP I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed single family dwelling concept and have the following requirements: 1. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. This would also include the private drive. 2. If the private drive is to have a center island contact the City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for turning radius, - size of cul-de-sac and posting of "No Parking Fire Lane" signage, pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec 10.204(d) and 10.203. 3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 4. Submit plans to Fire Marshal showing the connection to either existing or proposed streets at the north end or south end of the proposed road. 5. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet. Hydrants on submitted plan range from 160 feet to 600 feet. Submit new revised plan for approval. 6. The L-shaped private drive must have a street name, a fire hydrant at the end, and provide means of turning around of fire apparatus. g:kafe*y\mN eniage.ptr Minnegasco. A Division of Arkla,Inc. July 26 , 1994 Mr. Robert Generous Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: 94- 8 SUB, 94-4 REZ, 94-4 WAP, 94-4 CUP Heritage First Addition Heritage Development Company Dear Mr. Generous : Enclosed are your prints for this project indicating that Minnegasco does not have natural gas facilities in the project area. There is a natural gas main in an easement to the south of the railroad. Natural gas service is available to this property from this main. No addition work is anticipated at this time unless requested by a developer/builder/ owner. The developer/builder should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco' s Residential Energy Services, 525- 7607, to make application for natural gas service. Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal . Sincerely, OP° ♦\ Richard J. •ilon, P.E. Senior A• nistration Engineer Engineering Services 612-342-5426 cc : Mary Palkovich Terry Jencks miwititimmimmwi 700 West Linden Avenue P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis. MN 55440-1165 lammi NOTICE OF PUBLIC ��1 Ad HEARING I lir ,I PLANNING COMMISSION .g MEETING ' �rj' \,- Wednesday, AUGUST 17, 1994 0 �' 'T - = --� at 7:30 p.m. 1 �=�WAIW . ' � City Hall Council Chambers •�����.�� , 690 Coulter Drive „�, _. I 104!�1°C "°: O . J Project: Heritage First Addition Al:;;� `lm" r4t. t.,7 /;' beam,ftlliiii1INN /ik / Developer: Heritage Development Co. . '.f .0% �+�„4,4,..11_ Location: North of railroad, west of _ _�*0mik0���v�/ - , :�s Bluff Creek and east of - '��~' - , ®.'.s Timberwood Estates and Attr•70E141; • Stone Creek %,� • \ 4/ I ” Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing the rezoning of 39 acres of property zoned A2 to RSF, preliminary plat to create 50 single family lots and 7 outlots, wetland alteration permit for mitigation of ponding areas, and conditional use permit for alteration of areas within a flood plain on property located north of Twin Cities &Western Railroad tracks west of Bluff Creek and east of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek, Heritage First Addition, Heritage Development Company. 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 Chaij 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 August 3, 1994. McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. c/o Grand Met Tax Dept. Shamrock Property Partners J.P.'s Links Inc. MS: 1843 7350 Commerce Lane c/o John Przymus 200 S. 6th St. Fridley, MN 55432 642 Santa Vera Drive Minneapolis, MN 55402 Chanhassen, MN 55317 T. Lars Conway Michael J. Gorra Chan-Land Partners .415 Fremont Ave. S. 1680 Arboretum Dr. 200 Hwy. 13 W. Minneapolis, MN 55409 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Burnsville, MN 55337 Betty O'Shaughnessy Dale F. & Marcia Wanninger Lawrence & F. Raser 1000 Hesse Farm Rd. 8170 Galpin Blvd. 8210 Galpin Blvd. 2haska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Merle D. & Jane Volk Richard Hartung & Wallace Otto Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire 16925 Co. Rd. 40 400 Oak St. S. 4890 C. Rd. 10 E. 2,arver, MN 55315 Waconia, MN 55387 Chaska, MN 55318 fay C. Dolejsi Audobon I Limited Partnership Mitchel & Mary Krause 1961 CHaparral Ln. c/o Lars Akerberg 2380 Timberwood Dr. 2hanhassen, MN 55317 P.O. Box 158 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 lames L. & Linda J. Leirdahl Mark & J. Taintor Layton & Linda Zellman 1350 Timberwood Dr. 7481 Saratoga Drive 2290 Timberwood Dr. 2hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 7urtis & Janice Olson Gregory & J. Maaxum Mark J. Foster & Karen S. Olsson .961 130th Ln. 7480 Longview Cir. 8020 Acorn Ln. Toon Rapids, MN 55448 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 tichard D. & Marry Frasch David Gestach Richard M. Czeck ;000 Acorn Ln. 8001 Acorn Ln. 8011 Acorn Ln. 2hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317-9662 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ames & Debra Ann Lano Stephen McCurry & Sracey R. Rickert & :060 Oakwood Rdg. Bridget Haefner Michelle Rheault 2hanhassen, MN 55317 16780 North Manor Rd. 2040 Oakwood Rdg. Eden Prairie, MN 55345 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 Alva Bruce & Kristina Johnson James & Colleen Dockendorf James & Joann Jancik ')51 Oakwood Rdg. 2061 Oakwood Rdg. 2050 Timberwood Drive 'hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317-9666 David & Gail McCollum Agha Thir Khan & Stanley & Christine Rud 2048 Timberwood Dr. Patricia Khan 2030 Renaissance Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 2040 Renaissance Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & Roberta Lawson Gerard & Bonnie Murkpwski William & Lana Miller 2041 Renaissance Ct. 2051 Renaissance Ct. 8121 Pinewood Cir. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 James & Bonita Roeder Gregory & Jill Perrill Craig & Mary Harrington 8108 Pinewood Cir. 2102 Timberwood Dr. 8140 Maplewood Ter. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 C ITY 0 F PC DATE: 8/17/94 1 • CUAI.IUAEICCDATE: 9/12/94 CASE #: 92-5 PUD, 94-6 SPR STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: City of Chanhassen requests Preliminary plat approval for Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition to plat Outlots A and B. Ryan Companies is requesting preliminary approval for Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition to plat Outlot B into z Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, as well as and site plan approval for Lot 1, Block 1 Q for a Perkins Restaurant and Lot 3, Block 1 for a Taco Bell Restaurant. LOCATION: Highway 5, Powers Boulevard, West 78th Street, and Target Lane APPLICANT: City Of Chanhassen Ryan Companies of Minnesota a_ 690 Coulter Drive 700 International Centre Q Chanhassen, MN 55317 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 336-1200 PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development PUD, BG ACREAGE: Current Outlot B: 4.62 ac Proposed Outlot B: 3.15 ac Perkins 1.37 ac Proposed Outlot A: 1.47 ac Taco Bell .84 ac Proposed Future Restaurant: 0.95 ac INTENSITY: 0.05 F.A.R., site coverage 68% ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - General Business, BG, vacant, West 78th Street Q S - Highway 5 rr E - PUD, Target W - R12, ponding area, Powers Boulevard W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is bordered by 3 major collectors, Hwy. 5, West 78th, C ) and Powers Boulevard. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial LI -tr ii�tl�l����rif� 1E3 ,PARK41 7 �NO � L1 °SHENENDO CIRCLE dk t - ': • II VIOLET `'' � - NORTH) • t �a� � l ,■ o �:. ? ROAD \ LOTUS - �� 11111 �. �1/s � - ,�i �ni3�. . �� �r' , ��� LAKE a Av1�. _ � �um �: �� �__ mos, .M �I PARK iir,1 ril 1,;! 1"1 �.c �:� X11 _ � fa4 10 • 1 sis e� ramp �ii s ��� _ _ - . /AU .. '.�w� MiAl.. v. sem. t+� T V $ — 1 VF '-okit,-- ,..r„ ,...-q,„.- ..*_ iii,... . . .., Ii.,,,. . ,,,,,,,7„......4 11.,.....,: „,ti... B— Ir.. .;I ...TA$1,40 . g um lb. . ' •. 1 —, MA opsS 14.,,,,e• lril II it 41* li P., IN i lik,. • ,.,:_‘,. , - i,1 ow IS*4 6 v ill 1 i — A- , . siall . mrimuria.--- . 10.7.00 !I di°.491","-1 41 ., - .rIt11111U1 • sp". �1 001:Um. EllialliAlidtil i•ip if:. •LIV. ..r i iggs0 WARIER' id i l, iiiiallitess. g T. VIIIIIIIIIRIIVrell Mgt& IIP.7.0°( -MEP /11, %I . ilkilNIV �" a . ���� ti's '�e ��, ; o lur, :ADow Iragro � 4v/ ��11 �� bA� ' `, tivir EEN PARK 4C �� �� ���.> �<sf !!!`/41b, II rj t ::.::if' co IS *io war _.- dot% • 411100144 ...... . . oirik rem'Air 70%%IP • _. ,...,;.,-;---,' .,..- 41 11%.,%_ Or. ,_1_, - -.--.,\ 0.2k /��� ; 41,- : - 1- vs . iintg.• I k. *v. k\' P►MO *it 10 a Hist 0101164,37:44'' --I qp er \ ' 4 111. Er II illbl' n b .w7 Ilith AljA orla , g73 O .-d't'l Irr4HP• pA" , 4w in .]ri'v SW ,76' -I. =� - . /c 01, g �f] � T LAW II' a 4`I,I V a O OIL? of , I :11 I� y 'i d –` , 111111 um num tir v.- .WO v• + EMI 40 I'M IVs ;" _ - ---:,-- 0 di luL,E, WEST 18'H ST. u 1 HP. IIIP 5'111 m ,opili 1541rvwsiii. 4 Negte m , si-ii,43 .;-!,- -;:. mei N1101111/ 7 EHwaYo , ,� ►-`*.ink �� �� �j��.,__ . ,. IL 114 �TEROil NIG 3 LA.' �'�.�,�,� its�•��A • .s PARK °. '; - rI - \�� Chanhassen Retail August 17, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY There are four actions being considered with this proposal; two subdivisions and site plan approval for a Perkins Restaurant and a Taco Bell Restaurant. The City will be platting Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition. This subdivision is the replat of Chanhassen Retail Addition Oudot B. Oudot B was created with the "Target" plat for future development. The city will be creating two outlots with the Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition. Outlot A will be retained by the City for landscaping and gateway features. Outlot B will be sold to Ryan Companies. Ryan Companies are proposing to plat Outlot B, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition, into 3 lots for a Perkins, Taco Bell, and future restaurant. The Perkins on Lot 1, Block 1 is 1.37 acres and includes a 5,000 square foot building with 97 parking stalls and Taco Bell on Lot 3, Block 1 is 0.84 and includes a 1,800 square foot building with 34 parking stalls. Both sites are in for site plan review concurrently with the subdivision review. The design of the Taco Bell is proposed to be double Roman concrete roof tiles. The color will be terra cotta. The building will be stucco, manor white and sandlewood beige trim. The roof is a mansard style. It is pitched but flat on top. The height of the building is approximately 17 feet. The pitched roof element is 5 feet. The design of Perkins is stucco with a ceramic tile accent band. Columns are spaced 15 apart. The building is 17' 8" high with a 412 foot high standing seam side pitched roof element. Both designs are consistent with the Highway 5 overlay district and the standards of the PUD. Staff is recommending preliminary plat approval for Chanhassen Retail Second Addition, preliminary plat approval for Chanhassen Retail Third Addition, and site plan approval for Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition (Perkins) and Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition, subject to the conditions and revisions contained in this staff report. BACKGROUND At the time of conceptual review for the Target PUD, Ryan Construction had proposed 3 alternatives for Outlot B. Version 1 A of Outlot B included 4 buildings and 26,000 square feet. Outlot Version 1B included 5 buildings and 29,100 square feet of building. Outlot B Version 1C includes 6 buildings and 25,000 square feet. Numerous negotiations were held between Ryan Companies and the city to review how Outlot B should be developed. The city always intended to have some form of gateway on the property. In addition the impervious surface requirement was exceeded on the Target site and this would have to be balanced on the remaining portion of outlot. The city has decided to retain a larger portion of Outlot B and sell that portion that can be platted into three lots. Staff is pleased with the results considering where development of this parcel started. At one time there was under consideration six building sites on Outlot B. The three lots being proposed allows the city to landscape the perimeter of the development, lessen the intensity of development and meet the impervious surface requirements. Chanhassen Retail August 17, 1994 Page 3 The HRA has had Hoisington Koegler Group working to develop gateway treatments for three entrances areas in the city. The city council is currently reviewing some cost and maintenance considerations. When developed these plans will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Since the approval of the PUD for Chanhassen Retail Center, the city has adopted the Highway 5 Overlay District. The standards of the overlay district include: 1. Parking and building orientation: The building setback needs to be 50 feet both sites meet this standard. The parking needs to be consistent with the overlay district which is 20 feet. The Taco Bell is too close to West 78th Street at 15 feet. 2. The architectural design is consistent with the overlay standards. Both buildings are stucco. The Taco Bell has a Roman barrel (tile) roof. The Perkins has a mansard style roof and standing seam siding. Staff has concerns with roof top screening from the high point on Hwy. 5 to the roof of Perkins. The materials and details of the buildings are consistent with the Hwy. 5 standards. The Taco Bell is proposed to be white with beige accents. The color of the Perkins building is unknown. 3. Landscaping around the perimeter will be done by the city including the gateway. The interior landscaping needs to be revised. The proposed site plans need to be modified to be consistent with the PUD and Hwy. 5 standards. SUBDIVISION Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition The City will be platting Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition. This subdivision is the replat of Outlot B, Chanhassen Retail Addition. Outlot B was created with the "Target" plat for future development. The city will be creating two outlots with the Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition. Outlot A will be retained by the City for landscaping and gateway features. Outlot B will be sold to Ryan Companies. The platting of Outlot B establishes the development parameters for the site. Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition Ryan Companies is proposing to plat Outlot B, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition, into 3 lots for a Perkins, Taco Bell, and future restaurant. The Perkins on Lot 1, Block 1 is 1.37 acres and includes a 5,000 square foot building with 97 parking stalls and Taco Bell on Lot 3, Block 1 is 0.84 and includes a 1,800 square foot building with 34 parking stalls. Both sites are in for site plan review concurrently with the subdivision review. The HRA is also considering a gateway treatment on a portion of Outlot A, Chanhassen Retail Second Addition. GRADING/DRAINAGE Chanhassen Retail August 17, 1994 Page 4 The grading plan dated July 18, 1994 indicates that the entire parcel is proposed to be graded. However, there is no information provided as to whether there will be excess material hauled off the site and/or borrow material brought in if soil correction is needed. If there is excess material to leave the site, the developer shall indicate the quantity as such and define an appropriate haul route for approval. The plans also do not indicate locations for erosion control. A watershed permit will be required prior to commencing any site grading. In terms of drainage design for the entire site, it appears that the drainage subdistrict areas have changed from that which was shown with the approved Target site plan. •The original Target site plan indicated that the southerly half of Outlot B would drain via storm sewer to the Target pond while the northerly half of the site would drain northeasterly, eventually discharging into the new pond in the northwest quadrant of Trunk Highway 5 and County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard). The existing storm sewer systems for the Target pond and the West 78th Street pond have been sized consistent with the originally approved drainage plan for the Target site. The developers shall provide drainage calculations and a drainage sub-area district map verifying flow quantities and proper pipe capacities for the proposed internal storm sewer system which will discharge into the existing Target site and West 78th Street systems. All storm sewer within the site is considered private and shall be maintained as such. With respect to the specific drainage from the Taco Bell site, the parking lot shall be reconfigured to drain to the easterly lead of the two storm sewer leads provided to this site from West 78th Street. The westerly storm sewer lead provided is intended to serve the future restaurant site west of the proposed Taco Bell. The Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) would not apply with this plat since the Target site and the West 78th Street roadway improvements have provided the necessary downstream storm water treatment facilities. These parcels are being assessed for the West 78th Street improvements. UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and water is available to this overall development via existing public facilities. All proposed internal sewer and water service facilities associated with this development area considered private and shall be maintained as such. The developer shall denote on the utility plans which lines are private and which lines are public. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with protecting all existing public facilities including, but not limited to, city sanitary sewer, water, phone cable and gas within the site as the proposed improvements are constructed. EASEMENTS The old West 78th Street right-of-way alignment runs through the northerly portion of this overall site. This right-of-way should be vacated in conjunction with this proposed development. However, in conjunction with this right-of-way vacation, utility easements will need to be obtained and/or maintained over the existing public utilities running through the site as follows: A 30-foot drainage and utility easement centered on the existing sanitary sewer alignment through the site. Chanhassen Retail August 17, 1994 Page 5 - The existing drainage and utility easement obtained with the underlying plat of the West Village Heights 2nd Addition shall be maintained in existence. - An additional 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be granted along the south line of the previously described West Village Heights 2nd Addition drainage and utility easement. From review of the site plan dated July 18, 1994, it is apparent that the proposed Taco Bell building would encroach upon the proposed 20 foot drainage and utility easement and the northwest building corner would be approximately five feet from an existing phone cable. If this is approved by the phone company, an encroachment agreement for this condition will need to be executed. Target Lane is currently platted as public right-of-way. It may be more appropriate to vacate this 250-foot segment and have cross-access easements between the Target site and the development of Outlot B. STREETS/ACCESS This property is bordered by 3 major collectors; State Hwy. 5, County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard), and West 78th Street. West 78th Street is proposed to be realigned and it will swing to the north as it approaches Powers Boulevard. SRF is working on the design (West 78th Street Detachment Improvement Project) of this street. Plans will be developed jointly with the proposed Target development. All access to the site will be gained off of West 78th Street. The site plan proposes that the most westerly access be a full access intersection. SRF has recommended that this access be a right turn-in/right turn-out only, full access at this location would be dangerous. The other two accesses will be full intersections with a signal at the most easterly access to the entrance to Target. Two of these accesses will also serve the property to the north. Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch has looked at the traffic generation for this area and traffic issues. They have completed a future peak trip generation for the 78th and Powers area based on complete development of this area (both sides of west 78th) as commercial development. Even with total development the traffic as proposed will not exceed the design capacity. The ultimate Average Daily Trip (ADT) for this area going south on Powers and east onto West 78th would be 3830 or an increase from current levels of 800 trips. The ultimate ADTs from north on Powers Blvd. east on to West 78th Street would be 10,071, an increase of 7,071 trips. Again, these ADTs include ultimate development in this area including Market Square and the James property to the north which is commercially zoned. All internal streets within this development are considered private and shall be maintained as such. The main entrance to this development is approximately 150 feet south of the West 78th Street intersection. In fact, this access location was constructed as a part of the Target parking lot! The previously approved Target site plan showed the access to this outlot lining up with the access to the Target parking lot which is approximately 250 feet south of the West 78th Street intersection. The currently proposed main access to the development is too close to West 78th Street and presents difficulties for customers egressing the site during busy times of the day. This primary access should be moved south as previously approved. In addition, access to the Taco Bell site and Perkins parking lot are proposed to be approximately 50 feet east of Target Lane. This would likely present a problem with vehicles egressing from the Taco Bell site. The developer should consider limiting Chanhassen Retail August 17, 1994 Page 6 access out to only the drive-through traffic at this easterly access; however, relocating the main entrance to the site farther south may eliminate this Taco Bell access issue. Subdivision Findings 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the PUD - BG, Planned Unit Development - General Business 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. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 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. Chanhassen Retail August 17, 1994 Page 7 GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE Ryan Companies are proposing to plat Outlot B, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition, into 3 lots for a Perkins, Taco Bell, and future restaurant. The Perkins on Lot 1, Block 1 is 1.37 acres and includes a 5,000 square foot building with 97 parking stalls and Taco Bell on Lot 3, Block 1 is 0.84 and includes a 1,800 square foot building with 34 parking stalls. Both sites are in for site plan review concurrently with the subdivision review. Perkins The applicant is proposing a 5,000 square foot Perkins Restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Third Addition. The design of Perkins is stucco with a ceramic tile accent band. Columns are spaced 15 apart. The building is 17' 8" high with a 41/ foot high standing seam side pitched roof element. Window canopy awnings are provided on two sides of the building. An accent band runs above and below the ceramic tile accent panels and approximately 2 1/2 feet above grand around the entire building Taco Bell The design of the Taco Bell is proposed to be double Roman concrete roof tiles. The color will be terra cotta. The building will be stucco, manor white and sandlewood beige trim. The roof is a mansard style. It is pitched but flat on top. The height of the building is approximately 17 feet. The pitched roof element is 5 feet. Arched elements are included at all entrances to the building. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Following Development standards were approved with the first phase of the Chanhassen Retail Center. These standards are to be used for the entire PUD or any additional phases. a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD commercial/retail zone. 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 appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the City's CBD development goals. 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. 1. Day Care Center 2. Standard Restaurants Chanhassen Retail August 17, 1994 Page 8 3. Health and recreation clubs 4. Retail 5. Financial Institutions, including drive-in service * 6. Newspaper and small printing offices 7. Veterinary Clinic 8. Animal Hospital 9. Offices 10. Health Care Facility 11. Garden Center (completely enclosed) 12. Bars and Taverns 13. Fast Food Restaurants (Maximum of 2) * * Drive thru's should be buffered from all public views FINDING: The uses are permitted in the PUD district. c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right- of-way, parking along right-of-ways shall be set back 20 feet. Street Building Parking Setback Setback West 78th Target 55 feet 20 feet Outlot B 50 feet 20 feet Powers Boulevard 50 feet 20 feet Hwy. 5 Target 120 feet 20 feet Outlot B 50 feet 15 feet FINDING: The location of the Target Store, Perkins and Taco Bell meet these standards, but the parking lot for Taco Bell does not meet the required 20 foot setback for parking lots from West 78th Street and must be revised. d. Development Standards Tabulation Box USE Lot Area Bldgs Bldg Sq Ft Parking Coverage % Target 10.29 ac 1 117,165 585 76.3 Outlot B 2nd Add 4.62 ac. 0 0 0 0 Outlot A 1.46 ac. 0 0 0 0 Landscaping Perkins 1.37 ac. 1 5,000 97 * Chanhassen Retail August 17, 1994 Page 9 Taco Bell 0.84 AC. 1 1,800 34 * undeveloped 0.95 1 3,400 57 * TOTAL 16.31 4 127,365 773 66 * Cumulative Outlot A and Lots 1, 2, and 3, BIock 1 is 68 percent impervious FINDING: Complies with the development standards established as part of the PUD. e. Building Materials and Design 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. 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels. Painted surfaces shall be allowed on the Target store only. 2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. 5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components. 6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs, except for the Target store shall have a parapet wall for screening. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 8. All outlots shall be designed with similar material and colors as Target. (Target will be the first store to build and they will establish or set the theme.) 9. All buildings on Outlot B shall have a pitched roof line. FINDING: The development meets the building materials and design criteria established as part of the PUD. The applicant has provided a cross section from Highway 5 which shows that the pitched roof screens rooftop equipment from the south. The applicant must also verify that the height of the pitched roof element will screen the rooftop equipment from the high point of Highway 5 and from the high point on West 78th Street. The developer must provide a trash enclosure location for the Chanhassen Retail August 17, 1994 Page 10 Perkins site. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials of the principal structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right-of-ways. 1. Site Landscaping and Screening 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. 1. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 3. The master landscape plan for the Target 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. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Outlot B shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas proposed for future development. FINDING: The applicant must revise the landscaping plan to replace all ornamentals and evergreen within the vehicular area with overstory type trees. In addition, the developer shall screen the trash enclosure for Taco Bell with evergreen plantings. The minimum peninsular landscape island width is 8 feet. One tree per each 250 square feet or fraction thereof of landscaping area. Each landscaping island must be a minimum of 200 square feet and must contain at least one tree. The applicant shall install an aeration/irrigation tubing, see figure 11-3 attached, in each peninsular island. At least one peninsular landscape area shall be provided along the northern parking lot stalls for Taco Bell. g. Signage One freestanding pole sign be permitted for Target and one for the other buildings in Outlot B. All buildings in Outlot B should be limited to monument signs. 1. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. 3. All signs require a separate permit. Chanhassen Retail August 17, 1994 Page 11 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. This includes the freestanding wall and monument signs. Signs shall be an architecture feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. FINDING: The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15 percent of the wall area. Taco Bell and Perkins elevations shall be.revised to comply with this condition. In addition, one pylon side is permit for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. h. Lighting I. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 2 candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. 4. Light poles shall be Cortex, shoe box light standards. FINDING: The development complies with the lighting requirements established in the PUD. Note: The photocell receptacle is not optional. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of 92-5 PUD for the preliminary plat for Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition and Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition as shown on the plans dated July 25, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Developer shall petition the City to vacate the old West 78th Street right-of-way which traverses the overall site. 2. The following easements shall be dedicated on the final plat: A 30-foot drainage and utility easement centered on the existing sanitary sewer alignment through the site. Chanhassen Retail August 17, 1994 Page 12 - The existing drainage and utility easement obtained with the underlying plat of the West Village Heights 2nd Addition shall be maintained. These easements cover the City's existing watermain and one of the telephone cables. An additional 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be granted along the south line of the previously described West Village Heights 2nd Addition drainage and utility easement. 3. It appears that the northwest corner of the Taco Bell building would encroach into the proposed 20-foot drainage and utility easement and be approximately 5-feet south of the existing buried phone cable. The developer shall obtain approval from the phone company for this condition and if obtained, a subsequent encroachment agreement shall be executed for this condition." Site Plan Conditions of Approval "The Planning Commission recommends approval of site plan #94-6 as shown on the plans dated July 19, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits associated with the development of this site including but not limited to watershed district, PCA, MWCC, Health Department. 2. All proposed storm sewer and sanitary sewer and water services within the site are considered private and shall be maintained as such. 3. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer drainage calculations and a drainage map for the entire site showing areas and quantity of flow to the Target pond and to the County Road 17 pond that are consistent with capacities of the existing storm sewer system. 4. Stormwater drainage from the Taco Bell site to the West 78th Street storm sewer shall be directed into the easterly storm sewer lead from West 78th Street immediately north of the parking lot. 5. Developer shall indicate any quantities of borrow material and/or material to be hauled off site including a proposed haul route. 6. The applicant shall develop an erosion control plan in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for development. 7. Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with protection of the existing public utility facilities within the overall site. Developer shall also differentiate on the final site plans which lines are public and which are private. Chanhassen Retail August 17, 1994 Page 13 8. All internal streets and drives within the overall development are considered private and shall be maintained as such. The main entrance to the site shall be located farther south to align with the existing curb cut across from the entrance to the Target parking lot. 9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated as per the Fire Marshal's recommendation. 10. The developers shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 11. Construction access to the parcel shall be from the existing Target driveway and not West 78th Street or Powers Boulevard. The applicant and/or contractor shall install and maintain a gravel construction entrance until the access driveway is paved with a bituminous surface. 12. but the parking lot for Taco Bell does not meet the required 20 foot setback for parking lots from West 78th Street and must be revised. 13. The applicant must also verify that the height of the pitched roof element will screen the rooftop equipment from the high point of Highway 5 and from the high point on West 78th Street. 14. The developer must provide a trash enclosure location for the Perkins site. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right-of-ways. 15. The applicant must revise the landscaping plan to replace all ornamentals and evergreen within the vehicular area with overstory type trees. 16. The developer shall screen the trash enclosure for Taco Bell with evergreen plantings. 17. The minimum peninsular landscape island width is 8 feet. One tree per each 250 square feet or fraction thereof of landscaping area. Each landscaping island must be a minimum of 200 square feet and must contain at least one tree. The applicant shall install an aeration/irrigation tubing, see figure 11-3 attached, in each peninsular island. At least one peninsular landscape area shall be provided along the northern parking lot stalls for Taco Bell. 18. The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15 percent of the wall area. Taco Bell and Perkins elevations shall be revised to comply with this condition. In addition, one pylon side is permit for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. 19. Fire Marshal recommendations: a Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. Chanhassen Retail August 17, 1994 Page 14 b. Install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and paint curb yellow in designated fire lanes. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of signage and curb painting. c. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. d. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. ATTACHMENTS 1. Development review application. 2. Target PUD agreement. 3. Memo from Bill Weckman, Carver County dated August 8, 1994. 4. Memo from Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle dated August 10, 1994. 5. Notice of hearing and property owners. 6. Preliminary plat and site plan. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937.1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Ryan Companies of Minnesota OWNER: City of Chanhassen ADDRESS: 700 Int.ernatinnal Cancra ADDRESS: 690 Coulter nr-hr@ 900 Second Ave. S. Minneapolis. MN 554117 2.0. Box 147. Cl,anha.czon, MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Day time) 336-1200 TELEPHONE: 937-1900 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 16. X Preliminary and Final Plat 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. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ - ° 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 processede appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract JUL-18-94 MON 15:07 RYAN COMPANIES FAX NO. 612+337+5552 P. 03 RCU 5v:R"AN COMPANIES i 7-18-94 1 :37PM i 612 833 11:34 MINNEAPOLIS, MN. ;4 3 . PROJECT NAME .J. 4 • p _ h _... -+.;1 • • . LOCATION -. - :.1 1 :, . • . • - - .. .e. - LEGAL DESCRIPT1ON s, - .a PRESENT ZONING PGS REQUESTED ZONING Pun_PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION - Vacs -- REQUESTED LAND USE DES;GNAT1ON -- REASON FOR THIS REQ;JEST .�°-1 .,.... . . , 4 - .•• • - ""'off stareards in p13ce on this parcel. This a ;is-ation must be completed in fuU and be typewrtlen or cieartY printed and muss be ac oripitniecl by arirrFormatiori and plans required by appkabie City Ordinance girovisions. Before filing tie appiioaticn, you should eonfe ith,ith the Plannrlg Dapaatment to detenrine the specific ordir..ar and procedural r irernent$ !ppb r This trr b cartfyr that I am making appllrtion for the described action by the City and that 1 am rtldpon3lb ie for complyingparty with alC!ty requirements wRh nygard this request Thle application a.houid be Prvcc )d in my name and I am ' he wt+am the City should contact regarding any matter Pertaining to this appbcatkei. I have abashed a coPrY of Prt)o! Of ownership authorized (e ther n:ofi toPmatcaapPSk�tion and ths�tne�owne has BSc s�ned ti`s appl�on01 Title. kstract 01 TIN or A agreement), or I am the 1� I will keep myself IreorMed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this 14:06040111. I further understand that additional !us may be charged for eansultirsg tees, feasibility shales. etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to pree•id with the Judy. The doWrnents and iniermilich I have SUbr111ttt d are true and correct to the best of nTy knowledge. I also undarst6r+d that after the apprc,.4 or grading of the pe:Ynl1, such parrots shall be ivelid unless they are recorded against the He to theroperty for hich the approvallfrit d rental within 129 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the -nsi 1,,metit med tb City Hail 400rcis. l(1 a , 1 t Iv 1 Signature of r•'• • - ate J Signature of Fee Owner Cate Applicati0i1 Received on Fee PaidRO:oipt No the applicant 'hyoid contact slam for a copy of the staff rcpert which will be available an Friday prior to the meeting. it not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's tadCrele. T.-F_ F.a7 Outlot B: Chanhassen Retail Narrative Document APPLICATION FOR APPROVALS OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN July 18, 1994 Prepared for City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Developer: Ryan Construction 700 International Centre 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612)336-1200 Prepared By: RLK Associates, Ltd. 922 Mainstreet Hopkins, MN 55343 (612)933-0972 Outlot B: Chanhassen Retail Narrative for Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Approvals July 18, 1994 SUMMARY The site currently forms OUTLOT B of PUD #92-5. This PUD includes the Target site and Outlot B. The proposal is for the replatting of Outlot B into four lots; three buildable lots and an outlot to remain under City control. The remaining outlot essentially surrounds the building lots along Hwy. 5, Powers Blvd., and West 78th St. Two of the three building lots are proposed as sites for new restaurants. The third building lot is reserved for future development. This submittal package comprises the applications for preliminary plat and site plan approvals. SITE DESCRIPTION The site includes approximately 4.62 acres of undeveloped land surrounded on three sides by existing roads: Hwy. 5 on the south, West 78th St. on the north, and Powers Blvd. on the west. The Site Plan, supporting plans, and Preliminary Plat included in this submittal packet show the site location, site layout, and design details necessary for site plan approval. The respective areas of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 (Perkins) 1.37 acres Lot 2 (future) 0.95 acres Lot 3 (Taco Bell)0.84 acres Outlot B 1.46 acres TOTAL 4.62 acres DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Intent The intent of the PUD is to promote high-quality commercial development. Specific guidelines and standards for the development of Outlot B are listed in the existing PUD. For example, all utilities are to be underground, building materials shall be high quality and durable masonry, and pitched roof lines are required on Outlot B. These and all other requirements of the PUD will be met by the proposed development. The future development on Lot 2 will be required to undergo individual site plan review when an appropriate restaurant is found for that lot. These and other intents and purposes of the PUD are met by the current proposal. Outlot B: Chanhassen Retail page 2 Permitted Uses Uses recommended for and allowed in the PUD include standard restaurants and fast food restaurants. Not more than two fast food restaurants are to be permitted in Outlot B. The current proposal is for one fast food restaurant and one standard restaurant. The fast food restaurant drive through will be buffered from public views as required. Uses included in the proposal are permitted in the PUD. Setbacks The following setbacks are required: Building Setback Parking Setback West 78th St. 50 feet 20 feet Powers Blvd. 50 feet 20 feet Hwy. 5 50 feet 20 feet These setbacks will be met. Development Standards Table Lot Area No. of Bldg. Parking Imperv. (acres) Bldgs. Area(sf) F.A.R. Stalls Surface Lot 1 (Perkins) 1.37 1 5000 0.08 97 Lot 2 (future) 0.95 1 3400 0.08 57 Lot 3 (Taco 0.84 I 1800 0.05 34 Bell) Outlot B 1.46 na na na na TOTAL 1.62 3 10.200 0.05 188 68% The proposal falls within the PUD maximum for impervious of 70%. The overall F.A.R. is a low 0.05. Building Materials and Design All building facades will include an assortment of rockface concrete block, Dryvit, and tinted glazing using colors which are cohesive with the existing Target building. The roof lines will be sloped in accordance with the City of Chanhassen requirements using either standing seam metal or asphaltic shingles. The Taco Bell building will use concrete tile • Outlot B: Chanhassen Retail page 3 rather than asphaltic shingles. Details can be seen on the building elevation sheets included in this submittal packet. Landscaping and Screening A preliminary landscaping plan is part of this submittal packet. The plant materials specified are consistent with the quantity and type of materials currently existing within the Target parcel to the east. The landscape plan will unite these two parcels with a uniform plant material palette. Signage Each lot will have one monument sign. One freestanding pylon sign for all three lots is included in the proposal. These signs comply with the PUD signage requirements. All PUD and applicable sign ordinance requirements will be met. Refer to the site plan for signage locations. Refer to the building elevations for signage proposed on the individual buildings. • Lighting A preliminary lighting plan is included as part of this submittal packet. Lighting intensity at the property lines will be 1/2 foot candle as required in the PUD. At locations where the property abuts with West 78th St. and Target Lane, the light levels will match the existing light level at the property line. STRFFTS AND ACCESS The site is surrounded by three major collectors: Hwy. 5, West 78th St., and Powers Blvd. Access to the site will be from Target Lane only. Traffic will access Target Lane from 78th St. No other access is proposed. Traffic lights exist at Target Lane/78th, Powers/78th, and Powers/Hwy. 5. The traffic study prepared for the area by a City consultant was based on complete development of the area for commercial uses. Projected traffic would not exceed the design capacity of the roads. Pedestrian access to Powers Blvd. and downtown will be provided via a sidewalk located on the south side of West 78th St. Outlot B: Chanhassen Retail page 4 GRADING AND DRAINAGE A preliminary grading plan is included in the submittal packet. The grading plan was designed with the site balancing for cut and fill. A final take off for quantities of earth to be moved is not yet known. Drainage will be southeast to the existing stormwater pond constructed for the Target store located on Outlot A. This pond was designed to handle and treat to NURP standards the runoff from the Outlot B site as well as the Target site. The current proposal may require additional review by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. UTILITIES Preliminary L:, _l} part :::Fthe &ubmltta, packet. Water and sever are available t o the site. No reiocatien of the sewer line or water trunk line will be necessary, as conren:plat-'d in earlier reviews of this site. S. j j i 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT • r • $QREEMENT dated October 26 , 1992, by, between, and among the CI Y OP CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter re •erred to as the "City") , •and DAYTON HUDSON CORPORATION, a Minnesgta . • co.i.oration, and B.C. "31W' BURDICK and BRIGITTE BURDICK, husband and wii - (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Developer") . �,. • Request for Approval. The Developer has asked the City to ap• ode a planned unit development for the land legally described on th. at.tached Exhibit "A" ("PUD") . 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby grants PUD approval s .ipeet to the conditions set forth in this Agreement. 3. Development Plans. The PUD shall be developed in accordance vi ' the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Ag -event. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, th. written terms shall control. The plans are: A. Conditions listed in Staff report dated _ September 2% , ' 1992, attached hereto as Exhibit "B". B. Site plan dated maj r 4 , 1992, prepared by RLR. Associates Ltd. C. Landscape plan dated November 6 , 1992, prepared bj • RLK Associates Ltd. • D. Plat of Chanhassen Retail Addition. 4. Zoning. Except as modified by this Agreement, BG, General . : . .Bu-:ntss District zoning, as may be amended from time to time, shall ap•' y .to the PUD. 5. Additional Approvals. Prior to development, the following ad. ttonal approvals are required. This list is not inclusive and does TITLE INZA.\j..4CS CLAN lel Qf Er.! :,.c.077 • 626 2V South ki:r.,cha7 Rad.Suet 705 rii/09/52 Shekcpee. 55379 • 612445.3212 LL./ n°2)-75 -i2 d T NW . O sNI 3711-1 LO:21 26. LT /1ON AI i not exempt the Developer from any other requirements imposed by statutes, rules, or ordinances. Required approvals include: A. PUD requirements in the City's zoning ordinance. B. Preliminary and final plat approval for Outlot B, Chanhassen Retail Addition. C. Site plan approval for each lot, except Lot 1, Block 1 , Chanhassen Retail Addition which has been approved. 6. Allowed Uses. The following uses are permitted within the PUD: * Day Care Center * Standard Restaurants * Retail * Financial Institutions, including Drive-in Service * Newspaper and Small Printing Offices * Veterinary Clinic * Offices * Health Care Facility * Garden Center (completely enclosed) * Bars and Taverns, if not more than 40% of gross revenue is derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor * Fast Food Restaurants on Outlot B, Chanhassen Retail Addition (a maximum of two) Except as provided above, all other permitted, conditional , and interim uses are prohibited. 7 . Building Materials and Design. All buildings within the PUD shall conform to the following requirements: A. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through brick or colored block or panels. Painted surfaces shall be allowed only on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Addition. B. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. C. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured, or coated. D. Metal standing seam siding may only be used as support material to one of the above materials, curtain wall on office components, or as a roofing material . 626 2 r11/09/92 41 41 E. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. All ground mounted equipment, trash storage, etc. must be fully screened by compatible masonry walls. F. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs, except for Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Addition, shall have a parapet wall for screening. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. G. All outlots shall be designed with similar material and colors as the building on Lot 1 , Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Addition. H. All buildings on Outlot B, Chanhassen Retail Addition, shall have a pitched roof line and use architectural themes consistent with each other, the building on Lot 1 , Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Addition, and representative of the Chanhassen CBD. 8 . Landscaping and Screening. Development within the PUD shall conform to the following requirements: A. Each lot within the PUD must have a landscaping plan approved by the City as .part of the site plan review process. B. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material . C. Outdoor storage is prohibited. D. The master landscape plan for Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Addition, 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. E. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed appropriate. F. Outlot B, Chanhassen Retail Addition, shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas proposed for future development. G. Tree preservation areas shall be clearly staked and marked by snow fence. Prior to the start of grading, City staff may require minor revisions to grading including the potential use of retaining walls, if it appears that tree preservation will benefit. Protected trees lost due to development activity shall be 626 3 r11/09/92 i a replaced on a caliper inch basis in accordance with plans approved by City staff. 9. Signage. Exterior signage in the PUD is limited to the following: A. Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Chanhassen Retail Addition, are each allowed one pylon sign. B. Each lot shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the lot. Monument. signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. C. Wall signs are permitted on no more than two (2) street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. D. The signage must have consistency throughout the PUD and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. This includes freestanding wall and monument signs. Signs shall be an architecture feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. E. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. F. Sign permits from the City are required for each sign. G. Temporary signs are allowed if consistent with the City sign code. 10 . Lighting. The following exterior lighting standards in the PUD shall apply: A. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium shoe box fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. B. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. C. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. D. Light poles shall use shoe box light standards. 626 4 r11/09/92 i .� 11. Special Provisions. PUD development shall also comply with the following special provisions: A. All buildings on Outlot B, Chanhassen Retail Addition, shall have a pitched roof. B. The City may require a revised concept plan for Outlot B, Chanhassen Retail Addition, depending upon the alignment for West 78th Street. C. The impervious surface for the entire PUD shall not exceed seventy percent (70%) . All site plans and development shall be consistent with this requirement. 12 . Representations by Developer. The Developer represents to the City that the PUD and its development will comply with all city, county, metropolitan, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, environmental regulations, the Federal Clean Water Act, and the applicable Minnesota statutes and regulations regulating wetlands. If the City determines that the PUD does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work in the PUD until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. 13 . Changes in Official Controls. Unless the Developer has materially breached the terms of this PUD permit, for two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the PUD in the current metropolitan urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved PUD unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any 626 5 r11/09/92 amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. 14 . Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from PUD approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers, employees, and agents for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including reasonable engineering and reasonable attorneys' fees if the City prevails. C. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Agreement within forty-five (45) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt PUD development and construction until the bills are paid in full . Bills not paid within forty-five (45) days shall accrue interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per year. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: y (SEAL) Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor BY: Don shworth, City Manager 626 6 r11/09/92 I1JIr I 11 t. i.: l "1. , a, :„ I' 1 y► es :l; i , S # . .4.-..;4"..?,; ': ; r'a _ NE "" c it c. �,r u F • { •) tom • .'.,,�, _�� ,1 As 'it ;firioll �a j�r:�� 4 r' -.i2.!kiL4TR!:'... � , ,,,,t �,; •Ili =vI_ill is zrial��;����i r14�I•. ::. i; ., t g. .4� • , i J a t , � 1� .� s tht Figure 11-3 Favorable soil conditions for pavement plantings can be ob- • }' E: . tained by replacing 3.5 m' (120 ft') of soil 0.6 m (2 ft) deep with coarseI. I# lana slag and soil mix before installing pavement. The shape of an excava- •tion depends on the space available. Aeration can be further enhanced by t ° E : placing an aeration system as shown; the horizontal portion can be either • PVC pipe or flexible tubing. The risers are of heavy metal pipe with addi- tional support (not shown) to protect the tree and to withstand abuse. t 1 fE: i :A center of where the planter will be. The rock-soil mixture is lightly compacted to + gine a solid surface of lava with soil filling the voids. The pavement can then be , "tit"- . 1installed. This provides a firm base for the pavement with no further com action ' : ii P , In and because of the porosity of the lava (about 48-50 percent v/v) an optimal supply 'a ii of oxygen for tree roots (Kopinga 1985, citing Terlouw 1981). Tree roots should ,1 •i PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE _________"I (612)361-1010 ' 600 EAST 4TH STREET,BOX 6 FAX(612)361-1025 CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 � VNEsvt ". COUNTY OF CAQVFQ August 9, 1994 TO: Robert Generous, Planner II FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer SUBJ: Chanhassen Retail Center - Taco Bell Planning Case: 94-9 SUB and 94-6 SPR We have reviewed the information submitted by your memo dated July 20, 1994 for the Chanhassen Retail Center proposal located north of TH5 and east of CSAH 17 (Powers Blvd). The proposed development will not impact the County Road system. The development occurring as part of this proposal does abut the County Road right of way. The developer should be advised that no direct access to CSAH 17 (Powers Blvd) will be permitted. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper Contains Minimum 10%Post Consumer Waste t CITY TF CHANHASSEN ,o,s 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: August 10, 1994 SUBJ: Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat to Replat Outlot B of the Chanhassen Retail Center (Target Site) - Land Use Review File No. 94-9 GRADING/DRAINAGE The grading plan dated July 18, 1994 indicates that the entire parcel is proposed to be graded. However, there is no information provided as to whether there will be excess material hauled off the site and/or borrow material brought in if soil correction is needed. If there is excess material to leave the site, the developer shall indicate the quantity as such and define an appropriate haul route for approval. The plans also do not indicate locations for erosion control. A watershed permit will be required prior to commencing any site grading. In terms of drainage design for the entire site, it appears that the drainage subdistrict areas have changed from that which was shown with the approved Target site plan. The original Target site plan indicated that the southerly half of Outlot B would drain via storm sewer to the Target pond while the northerly half of the site would drain northeasterly, eventually discharging into the new pond in the northwest quadrant of Trunk Highway 5 and County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard). The existing storm sewer systems for the Target pond and the West 78th Street pond have been sized consistent with the originally approved drainage plan for the Target site. The developers shall provide drainage calculations and a drainage sub-area district map verifying flow quantities and proper pipe capacities for the proposed internal storm sewer system which will discharge into the existing Target site and West 78th Street systems. All storm sewer within the site is considered private and shall be maintained as such. With respect to the specific drainage from the Taco Bell site, the parking lot shall be reconfigured to drain to the easterly lead of the two storm sewer leads provided to this site from Bob Generous August 10, 1994 Page 2 West 78th Street. The westerly storm sewer lead provided is intended to serve the future restaurant site west of the proposed Taco Bell. The Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) would not apply with this plat since the Target site and the West 78th Street roadway improvements have provided the necessary downstream storm water treatment facilities. These parcels are being assessed for the West 78th Street improvements. STREETS All internal streets within this development are considered private and shall be maintained as such. The main entrance to this development is approximately 150 feet south of the West 78th Street intersection. In fact, this access location was constructed as a part of the Target parking lot! The previously approved Target site plan showed the access to this outlot lining up with the access to the Target parking lot which is approximately 250 feet south of the West 78th Street intersection. The currently proposed main access to the development is too close to West 78th Street and presents difficulties for customers egressing the site during busy times of the day. This primary access should be moved south as previously approved. In addition, access to the Taco Bell site and Perkins parking lot are proposed to be approximately 50 feet east of the Target Lane. This would likely present a problem with vehicles egressing from the Taco Bell site. The developer should consider limiting access out to only the drive-through traffic at this easterly access; however, relocating the main entrance to the site farther south may eliminate this Taco Bell access issue. UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and water is available to this overall development via existing public facilities. All proposed internal sewer and water service facilities associated with this development area considered private and shall be maintained as such. The developer shall denote on the utility plans which lines are private and which lines are public. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with protecting all existing public facilities including, but not limited to, city sanitary sewer, water, phone cable and gas within the site as the proposed improvements are constructed. EASEMENTS The old West 78th Street right-of-way alignment runs through the northerly portion of this overall site. This right-of-way should be vacated in conjunction with this proposed development. Bob Generous August 10, 1994 Page 3 However, in conjunction with this right-of-way vacation, utility easements will need to be obtained and/or maintained over the existing public utilities running through the site as follows: - A 30-foot drainage and utility easement centered on the existing sanitary sewer alignment through the site. The existing drainage and utility easement obtained with the underlying plat of the West Village Heights 2nd Addition shall be maintained in existence. - An additional 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be granted along the south line of the previously described West Village Heights 2nd Addition drainage and utility easement. From review of the site plan dated July 18, 1994, it is apparent that the proposed Taco Bell building would encroach upon the proposed 20 foot drainage and utility easement and the northwest building corner would be approximately five feet from an existing phone cable. If this is approved by the phone company, an encroachment agreement for this condition will need to be executed. Target Lane is currently platted as public right-of-way. It may be more appropriate to vacate this 250-foot segment and have cross-access easements between the Target site and the development of Outlot B. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN 1. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits associated with the development of this site including but not limited to watershed district,PCA,MWCC, Health Department. 2. All proposed storm sewer and sanitary sewer and water services within the site are considered private and shall be maintained as such. 3. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer drainage calculations and a drainage map for the entire site showing areas and quantity of flow to the Target pond and to the County Road 17 pond that are consistent with capacities of the existing storm sewer system. 4. Stormwater drainage from the Taco Bell site to the West 78th Street storm sewer shall be directed into the easterly storm sewer lead from West 78th Street immediately north of the parking lot. Bob Generous August 10, 1994 Page 4 5. Developer shall indicate any quantities of borrow material and/or material to be hauled off site including a proposed haul route. 6. The applicant shall develop an erosion control plan in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for development. 7. Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with protection of the existing public utility facilities within the overall site. Developer shall also differentiate on the final site plans which lines are public and which are private. 8. All internal streets and drives within the overall development are considered private and shall be maintained as such. The main entrance to the site shall be located farther south to align with the existing curb cut across from the entrance to the Target parking lot. 9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated as per the Fire Marshal's recommendation. 10. The developers shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 11. Construction access to the parcel shall be from the existing Target driveway and not West 78th Street or Powers Boulevard. The applicant and/or contractor shall install and maintain a gravel construction entrance until the access driveway is paved with a bituminous surface. RECOMMENDED CONDTTIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL 1. Developer shall petition the City to vacate the old West 78th Street right-of-way which traverses the overall site. 2. The following easements shall be dedicated on the final plat. A 30-foot drainage and utility easement centered on the existing sanitary sewer alignment through the site. The existing drainage and utility easement obtained with the underlying plat of the West Village Heights 2nd Addition shall be maintained. These easements cover the City's existing watermain and one of the telephone cables. Bob Generous August 10, 1994 Page 5 - An additional 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be granted along the south line of the previously described West Village Heights 2nd Addition drainage and utility easement. 3. It appears that the northwest corner of the Taco Bell building would encroach into the proposed 20-foot drainage and utility easement and be approximately 5-feet south of the existing buried phone cable. The developer shall obtain approval from the phone company for this condition and if obtained, a subsequent encroachment agreement shall be executed for this condition. jms g:lenglcharteslm em osloutlotb.spr (�e4••o^l . lam' ,'`` • � • NOTICE OF PUBLIC n o' ` , Ake HEARING — Wo PLANNING COMMISSION 1111% a Wy MEETING Wednesday, AUGUST 17, 1994 4-O MINI N at 7:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers • 690 Coulter Drive Project: Chan Retail 2nd and 3rd 4111,1 Perkins and Taco Bell - Restaurants ' �= c 5TER Developer: Ryan Companies and RLK ‘111,111111 Associates 111111111 Location: Corner of Hwy. 5, Powers F i Blvd. and West 78th Street AtSU r_ PARK Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing preliminary plat and final plat for Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition creating 2 outlots and Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition platting Outlot B into 3 lots and one outlot, site plan review of a 5,000 square foot building for Perkins Restaurant, a site plan review for a 1,800 square foot building for Taco Bell, located on the corner of Hwy. 5, Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street, Chanhassen Retail Center (Target site), Ryan Companies and RLK Associates. 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 August 3, 1994. The Park and Recreation Commissior will review this item on ; Tuesday, August 9 , 1994 at 7 :34p. m Dean R. Johnson Const. Roberts Automatic Products Lutheran Church of Living Christ 8984 Zachary Lane 880 Lake Drive Box 340 Maple Grove, MN 55369-0028 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eckankar T. F. James Company Beddor Enterprises/E. J. Carlson P. O. Box 27300 Suite 500 6950 Galpin Road New Hope, MN 55427 6640 Shady Oak Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dayton Hudson Corp. T-862 Property Tax Dept. 777 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55402 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 3, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad and Ron Nutting STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney; and Steve Kirchman, Building Inspector INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 10500 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: If you were to rate the intensity of use over the, let's say the last 12 months, what's your best guesstimate as to the intensity of that use with regards to the number of containers that are stored there on the average? Do you have a feel for that? Al-Jaff: The maximum I have been able to count on there has been 58. It has never gone beyond that. Scott: Why the extra 100? Al-Jaff: I think the applicant should answer that question at this point. Scott: Well since we're not having a public hearing, this will be a good time to do it so. Bill Griffith: Mr. Chair, Planning Commissioners, my name is Bill Griffith. I'm an attorney representing Admiral Waste. What we've discussed on site was essentially what is required to screen the containers, whether it be 58 or 140 or 200. The topography provides essentially a buffer to the north. The existing vegetation provides screening year round because of it's density and intensity around the area. And so what is being provided now is a 150 foot fence at 6 to 8 feet in height and the addition of the spruce trees provides a break in the look of that linear screening method. What we discussed is whether the applicant could come back at a future time and say, based on experience, we've got 140 out there now. There are still 2 or 3 rows left, in which we could provide dumpsters based upon that. Showing pictures or whatever type of documentation would be acceptable. Could we obtain essentially an 1 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 amendment of the deferment. That's what we desire. I think in fact the city code allows the applicant to come in, amend a permit and where it complies with the standards for approval, obtain an amendment for that permit. That's all that we're discussing. It really is a statement of what's allowed by code. We wanted to see a clear statement as there is in the, I think the last condition. For instance it states, the applicant may request an extension of the interim use permit prior to it's expiration. Similar to that kind of statement which is a statement of essentially the obvious that we can't request an extension. No guaranteed implied. We wanted to say that the applicant can request additional dumpsters if they demonstrate those dumpsters can be screened and that's what this full exercise is about. Demonstrating that we can screen the dumpsters which are now located on the property and those that are capped at 140 today and maybe at some number in the future. That's essentially what we discussed. Scott: Any questions for the applicant? Ledvina: Did you look at how many dumpsters can actually, physically fit in that area? In terms of putting the dumpsters there. Maneuvering them. Having access to a large type of truck vehicle and things like that. Bill Griffith: The plan which has been submitted to the staff would provide the ability to locate the 140 dumpsters. Today there are 4 rows, or there have been 4 rows. Again, they reduced the number of dumpsters down 20 to 58. We certainly know that 58 could be allowed. Ledvina: What's the size of the dumpster? The dimension of the dumpster. Bill Griffith: I don't have that. Nancy Lee: They're about... Ledvina: 1 1/2 to 10? Nancy Lee: They go anywhere from 1 1/2 foot deep to 10 to 12 foot deep, depending on the...diagram in that demonstrates when I put in these dumpsters, utilizing 12 foot dumpsters. Ledvina: I'm sorry, could you say that again? Nancy Lee: Sharmin has the...the southwest corner. Ledvina: Right, I see that but. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Nancy Lee: ...is a 5 x 4 foot... Ledvina: Right, I see that. But I guess what I'm thinking about is they all, you know they all pack in there nice but that's not, it doesn't seem to me the logistics of getting the things in and out. Are you literally packing them in there tight and how do you get equipment in that area to. Nancy Lee: ...dumpsters you use the back of the truck. You back up so you can hook it up to the back of the truck. Obviously we park the dumpsters in line so all we have to do is back up to it and take it away. Obviously we can't get the dumpsters at the very back end. We utilize those in the front first. Bill Griffith: Maybe I can get to the point of your question. The experience has been that 58 dumpsters in loosely aligned rows, because these were aligned before this issue arose. 58 dumpsters in 4 rows at 100 feet fits comfortably on the property and allows for a truck to come down and move it around. Based upon the discussions with city staff, we've increased the width of the area to 150 feet. That's the width of the, or the length of the fence. And the number of rows, because of the concerns about screening, are more closely spaced and the rows are now, 12 are shown on the plan but if you have 10 let's say at 150 feet, you could comfortably get in the 140 dumpsters and we would maybe at that point come back a year or two from now and say, can we increase the number. But it's been demonstrated that they can fit within the area shown on the plan. Mancino: Yeah, it hasn't been demonstrated to me yet. Don't we require a site plan as we do on any subdivision, any building site where we can see that the trucks can get in off Highway 101? I mean I went there and I was very concerned about big trucks getting into and onto that site. And I haven't seen a site plan that shows that the trucks can get in and out. And I haven't seen a site plan that shows us exactly where the 140 dumpsters will go and if the and if the land is graded. I haven't seen any grading plan or anything. Do we require that? There hasn't been any physical, visual thing for us to look at, at all. For the last, boy this started, we requested an actual landscaping plan, let's see. We met in June about this. We met in July about it and now we're meeting in August about it and we haven't seen anything. Scott: It's also unfair to have us react to something that's not in our packet. So it's very difficult for us. I mean fortunately you've had a chance to meet with the applicant and stuff but as a Planning Commission, I mean we don't have the benefit of those conversations. Nor do we have the benefit or did we have the benefit of what you have and it's very difficult for us to make a decision in a span of 10, 15, 20 minutes on something like this, so. I don't know how you want to respond to that. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Al-Jaff: I believe there are conditions in the staff report, and we have amended some of those conditions as well. We haven't had a chance to go through them yet but with the conditions in the staff report, we believe that we will achieve the desirable results. Scott: What about the, I noticed that there's some, a number of trees to be planted along the railroad right-of-way. Will that impart any screening benefit to the residents or from what I know of the area, that's fairly steep. There may be 40, 50 feet above the property. Al-Jaff: It won't, we won't get any benefits in the near future, no. Scott: What, and the reason for planting the trees along the railroad grade is for future eventual screening for the people on the bluff? Al-Jaff: Correct. Scott: Okay. Mancino: Dave, how do you feel about big trucks entering TH 101 and coming off TH 101 in that area? I mean it's one, hard to find. The entrance. I went there two different times looking for it and yet there was, when you're coming down that hill, it's right on the top of the hill going down to 212. And you don't see anything coming out of the east side there... Do you have any thoughts? Hempel: Yes, TH 101 is a curvy road in that area. There probably are some sight considerations to be concerned with. It's my understanding...it has been accessed in the past. Mancino: But we're intensifying the use. We're going to have more traffic there because we're going to have more dumpsters. Hempel: The other consideration I guess is TH 101 is a State highway and MnDot would have jurisdiction of the access. There probably could be the most concerns from a liability standpoint...necessary site improvements. There's traffic control signs to be placed and truck hauling signs and similar to that that could be posted on TH 101...the potential is there. Mancino: Because those trucks, I would think move pretty slow as they're getting ready to turn and somebody coming down that hill. The other thing is, as I remember it's gravel into there. The roadway off TH 101 is gravel. Don't we require, I know that we do in a residential areas, where you need driveways to be asphalt, 7 ton and MnDot requirements, etc. Is there? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Hempel: We do for two reasons. One is for emergency access. All weather, in the winter time conditions, spring thaw conditions. The other is from an erosion standpoint. Hilly terrain. There's not adequate site drainage to the site...potential to have erosion problems there but I think that site's been there for some time. I'm not aware of any kind of erosion problem. I haven't been made aware of anything yet to date. If I'm not mistaken, we did have a site plan at one time for this that did show either existing or proposed conditions. And we did have some remarks with regards to that site plan. At this time I don't think... Al-Jaff: Another thing we like to have...emergency access. There really isn't anyone living on this site. So that's something... There is some very minor, minor erosion. It's not even erosion. It's more of a pothole in the entrance as you go into the site. Mancino: So you would not recommend paving it as we do residential driveways? Al-Jaff: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff or the applicant? Al-Jaff: Could we, if I may, go through some conditions that need to be amended. Scott: Sure. Al-Jaff: On condition number 1. It should read, the applicant shall demonstrate. No, we take out the applicant shall demonstrate that the submitted landscaping screening plans will provide adequate screening year round. But it will read, all final plans shall be approved by staff. The fence and landscaping shall be constructed and planted prior to October 22, 1994. We originally chose the September 15th because that's the DOT deadline for landscaping. However, you can plant trees beyond that date and that's what the applicant requested and we can work with that. And condition number 5. This condition has been satisfied. When we went to the site we noticed that the compost materials had been removed. We also would like to add a condition to read that, the applicant shall replace any dead trees within one year. Or anything that dies within one year shall be replaced. Any new planted trees. Mancino: Anything on the property that dies. Scott: Also there should be a condition here that storage of compost materials, tires or plants, it says furniture or other refuse, shall not be stored on this site. And I don't know, I'm looking at the July l lth version. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Al-Jaff: Okay. We made a change to condition number 6 to read only empty dumpsters may be stored on the site. Scott: Okay, thank you. Mancino: Did you want to say anything about MnDot? Oh, you have got that. Al-Jaff: We do have that condition. Mancino: Yes, on 4. And how do you feel about the length of the term shall not exceed 10 years? Weren't we also talking about Sharmin last time, not only should it be terminated within one year of inclusion of the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, but according to the study, 1995 plan. How that's guided. Didn't we say something about that last time? Ledvina: Are you saying that we should tie that into that? Mancino: Yes. Scott: Tie the use. Mancino: Tie the use into that. Oh, but then we were concerned with. Ledvina: That's open ended. Mancino: Well, so are all of these. Al-Jaff: I believe that was the amendment of the BF district. The zoning ordinance amendment would apply then rather than this specific application. Scott: Any other comments or questions? Matt. Ledvina: Well, I don't know. I don't care to be surprised when it comes to these meetings as it relates to what we have. You know I specifically, I asked last time that we have the applicant demonstrate on paper that x amount of dumpsters can be fit in the screened area and that they shall screen from all sides. I don't know, I don't have a very good level of comfort that I see enough information to tell me that. I hate to say come back again and show us your plan. Let's see that plan in a little more detail. The contours on all sides because essentially, I mean you've said that yes. There's plantings there. There's trees but I'm not necessarily convinced of that because I haven't seen a detailed plan of that. I guess I'm still 6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 not comfortable with moving this along at this point. I think the applicant is on the right track certainly in terms of finalizing this thing but I'd like to know what I'm voting on and I don't have that level of comfort yet. Al-Jaff: Do you feel that condition number 6 addresses that concern? Or shall be limited to the number that can be adequately screened. Ledvina: Well, I'd like to know that going in up front. I think we can turn everything over to the staff but then at that point you know, what's our role. I think we need to, it's my understanding of the role that we want to make sure that the conditions of these types of permits are adequate. That the site plans are adequate and I don't have that level of comfort. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: Gosh, I guess I kind of feel the same way as Matt. I think that the applicant is in the right direction and I'm glad that staff and the applicant met to go over a landscape plan. Something that we've been requesting but I agree with Matt. We did ask to see a layout of the dumpsters and egress and ingress points and how that all works and I would feel much more comfortable waiting to see that. Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I won't argue with that. Obviously a time limit in there and... In general I'm not wildly enthusiastic about expansion of those uses. I go back to the mining issue that we had here many times. That's a pretty big percentage of expansion. Currently under the rules and regulations that we have, that's allowed but I go back again to the planning issue. I think it's enough property probably to live with that amount of dumpsters. But I think it might be a bad precedent for what we're doing. Or something at least to look at. And if they're going to study this for long term, next year or in the next season, I think that that's a good thing. I think we should do that. I think we should come to a conclusion as to what they're going to do with those businesses. We're going to permit that type of expansion... Mancino: I had a question for Sharmin. When we conditional use with Barbara Dacy. I think when she was Planning Director. When the conditional use was first given to the applicant. How many dumpsters? Wasn't it 50 at that time? Was there a limit? Al-Jaff: It was going to be enclosed within a building. There was supposed to be a building on this site. It was completely enclosed. Mancino: So that the dumpsters were going to be inside the building. Was that it? Or was 7 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 the building for some other maintenance reasons? Or was the thinking at the time that the dumpsters were all fitting inside the out building or the big? Al-Jaff: There was supposed to be vehicles in the building as well. Nancy, were there supposed to be vehicles as well as dumpsters? Nancy Lee: Dumpsters were not going to be stored in the building. Bill Griffith: Let me see if I can address the question please. I think the letter you're referring to from, is it Barb Dacy? That's the planner at the time. Allowed for the temporary storage of 50 dumpsters on the property pending the development of the site. As you may recall from earlier discussions, the City Council denied the request for an extension of the conditional use permit. As you may also recall, our concerns is there are very limited uses in the BF district and the applicant has been using this property in the interim for the storage of dumpsters. Essentially all they can use the property for because of limitations. That is why we're in here for an interim use permit. And that is probably why you have some discomfort level with the amount of materials submitted or the level of detail. This is not...a conditional use permit for a permanent use. This is not a commercial building. Something that you're maybe more familiar seeing at this Planning Commission level. This is an interim use permit essentially to install a fence to screen dumpsters on the property. Maybe if we established that the existing number, 58 would be the cap for this round and install the improvements and demonstrate to staff in the next season that we can store more on the property, maybe that would get us off of dead center. But as far as the level of detail, we do not intend to hire a professional landscape planner to provide detail on a fence. It just isn't going to be done for this level of use. This is an interim use permit. It's to store dumpsters on the property and we believe through site visits and through documentation that we've satisfied the city code and demonstrated that to city staff. I apologize and I'm sorry that hasn't been for 3 meeting brought your comfort level up but that's really where we're at. So maybe to get off dead center, if we propose the 58 that have been allowed to this point and demonstrate in the next season that we can store more. Once the improvements are there, maybe we can get this thing moved onto City Council. We have a season for construction and we have a season for installation of plantings and any further delays may put us beyond that season by the time we get out of City Council so that would be my proposal to move this thing along. Scott: What do you guys think about that? Mancino: I would be glad with not intensifying a use and keeping it 58 and also the term of the length being 5 years. Not 10 years as it says. For a interim use permit. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Farmakes: I find that acceptable. Scott: 5 years? Mancino: And not intensifying the use and keeping the dumpster count at 58. Farmakes: Sure. Ledvina: Well, I think if we reduce the numbers and kept the, allow some plantings the same that would bring about certainly 3 times the chance of that area being screened so that seems reasonable to me in terms of that approach. Mancino: And it doesn't intensify the traffic on TH 101 and it allows. Scott: How many, in your report, how many conditions do you have? You're working off the July 11th? I just want to make sure what I'm putting in. Al-Jaff: July 28th. Scott: May I have a motion by the way. Mancino: Yeah, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Interim Use Permit #94-1 for outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on plans received July 7, 1994 with the following conditions. Sharmin, could you please read the revised number 1? Al-Jaff: Okay. A final landscaping plan shall be approved by staff. The fence shall be constructed and the landscaping shall be planted prior to October 22, 1994. Mancino: And could you just add in that the 46 trees so we have a count as to what the landscaping is made up of. Al-Jaff: 46 spruce trees. Mancino: And how tall? 6 feet? Al-Jaff: The applicant has purchased the trees at 1 1/2 feet tall. They have been planted. Bill Griffith: The number is 42. They have been planted and they are, the trees are not providing the screening. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Al-Jaff: At the site, Nancy mentioned that they have been planted on her site. Nancy Lee: No. They're not planted. Al-Jaff: I misunderstood. They are 1 1/2 feet high and they are. Mancino: And they are, I mean the reason why we, they're planting 46 trees is to break the horizontal line, right? I mean isn't that what we were told. And the fence is going to be 8 feet tall, because it can screen more dumpsters being 8 feet tall. And now we're going to have 1 1/2 feet trees. I'm going to stop and can we go back to the discussion on that? What's our ordinance say as far as landscaping and? Don't we have a minimum coniferous size? Al-Jaff: 6 feet. Mancino: 6 feet, okay. So if we are asking for landscaping and we do have a minimum city size, thank you. Elliott Knetsch: If I may be allowed. You've seen my face at the last couple meetings. I'm Elliott Knetsch from the City Attorney's office and I guess I just wanted to say to you that in staff's opinion we've been looking at this for a long time. Obviously the level of submittals is not on a par with what you might see for Goodyear's conditional use permit to put an auto store on Highway 5. But the level of submittal is commensurate with the nature of the use and this is a temporary use. It's an interim use. It will only last under this permit as proposed for 10 years. It's basically a use that's existed out there since I think 1988 or '89. And we have to ask ourselves, what can we ask them to do. What kind of investment can we ask them to make in return for a 10 year use of the property. And they've been somewhat struggling with this property. Their plans, it was proposed back in '89 or so for a conditional use didn't come off and now we are left with a zoning district that provides zero permitted uses as it stands right now for that property. There's not one thing they could come in and get a site plan and do out there. Mancino: We just passed. Elliott Knetsch: Again that's, you recommended at the last meeting that we increase those permitted uses but that's not on the books yet. That still has to go to the City Council. I would suggest trying to make a decision tonight. If you feel that you just can't approve it, then I think you should make that recommendation. But if you can, if you do think the use can work out there with the conditions as outlined by staff, I think that's what should happen tonight. The applicants are here as far as some of your specific questions about trucks getting 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 in and out. I think they have provided a great deal more detail. We know where the storage area is going to be. It's outlined on their site plan so dumpsters won't be stored willy nilly all across the property. She's got a boxed in storage area there behind the fence. That's the only place a dumpster could go. The tree issue. They are not for screening. They are to break up the fence. They're 1 1/2 to 2 foot high spruce which if any of you have them know, they grow fast. You know within just a couple years. They will be very noticeable against that fence. If they aren't originally. Again, the site has a lot of vegetation on it. There's a bluff coming up from Highway 212 which provides some natural screening and a natural barrier in addition to the fence and so forth. So I guess what I really wanted to tell you is, it's apparent from these last three meetings that you're somewhat frustrated by the level of submittals and the information and then today you get something that's not in the report and that's certainly understandable but I guess our request, and the applicant's request is that you make a decision tonight one way or the other and state your reasons for that. Thank you for letting me speak. Scott: Thank you. Motion? Mancino: I'll try this one again. I move that we approve the Interim Use Permit #94-1 for outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on plans received July 7, 1994 with the following conditions. And Sharmin if you could state that again, and I would like to add, in specifics there if you could, that the fence be 8 feet in height and there are 46 trees be in varying height from 1 1/2 feet to 6 feet. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Oh, and the other one. Then number 2 stands as is. The hours of operations. Number 3, there shall be no outdoor speaker system stands as is. Number 4 stands as is. Number 5 we can delete? Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Number 6. The number of dumpsters shall be limited to a number that can be adequately screened, not to exceed 58 dumpsters. And retain only empty dumpsters may be stored on the site. Number 7 remains as is. Number 8, the length of the term shall not exceed 5 years. And the rest remains as is. And number 9, Sharmin could you please. About the applicant shall replace any new trees that die within one year. Al-Jaff: Correct. Ledvina: I'd second that. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Unless there's any discussion. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve Interim Use Permit #94-1 for the outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on plans received July 7, 1994, with the following conditions: 1. A final landscaping plan shall be approved by staff. The fence shall be 8 feet in height with 46 trees of varying height from 1 1/2 feet to 6 feet constructed and the landscaping shall be planted prior to October 22, 1994. 2. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday. Work on Sundays and holidays is not permitted. 3. There shall be no outdoor speaker system. 4. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 5. The number of dumpsters shall be limited to a number that can be adequately screened, not to exceed 58 dumpsters. Only empty dumpsters may be stored on the site. 6. There shall be a yearly review of this site to ensure compliance. 7. The length of the term shall not exceed 5 years. The use shall be terminated within one year of inclusion of the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area or if conditions of approval have been violated, whichever comes first. The applicant may request an extension for the interim use permit prior to it's expiration. 8. The applicant shall replace any of the new trees that die within one year. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46.5 ACRES INTO 36 RURAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, HALLA'S GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES, LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 14 (PIONEER TRAIL), AND WEST AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 (GREAT PLAINS BLVD), DON HALLA. Public Present: Name Address Mike Lynch 17003 Sherwood Road, Millac, MN LaVi Lynch 925 Creekwood Paul Martin 9610 Foxford Road Wayne Kinion 9451 Foxford Road Steve McMeen 9391 Foxford Road Doug Rynda. 9411 Foxford Road. David & Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Mark D. Halla 770 Creekwood Sandy and Don Hall 6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina Roger Anderson 7415 Wayzata Blvd, Mpls. Dale & Peggy Gunderson 845 Creekwood Deborah Graffunder 10001 Great Plains Blvd. Jim & Jan Sabinski 775 Creekwood Rick Schuelke 10251 Great Plains Blvd. James Dingel 9351 Foxford Road Karen Hasse 630 West 96th Street Claire & Anne Vogel 815 Creekwood Spencer Boynton 777 Creekwood Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report. Mancino: Can I ask one more question. Is that even if it's in a mixed use area? Because this is, it seems to be a residential subdivision around a commercial retail area. So does, how does that work? Al-Jaff: The retail area is an existing use. It's grandfathered in. They're not expanding the use. Mancino: And that area, the acreage that that takes up is part of the aggregate of the subdivision? Is that included in the aggregate because you've got two different uses? Okay. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Al-Jaff: That's part of the 102. Scott: Because I know the smallest lot I think is 60, 30,000 square feet. Something like that. Mancino: Well I just thought the whole aggregate would just have to do with the subdivision. The residential and wouldn't include a retail/commercial area with inside. Scott: Well that raises a question. So basically the existing use will continue and then there will be 60,000 to however many thousand square foot lots around it. Is kind of what you're. Mancino: Yeah. My question is, can you really consider, both because we've never used it as one whole unit when part of it's residential subdivision. And another part's a retail. A whole different kind of use. And isn't the aggregate for the 1 unit per 2.5 acres a residential subdivision requirement which has nothing to do with the retail area. Commercial area. Don Halla: I'm sorry but I'm Don Halla. I think you're interpreting it backwards. Your ordinance 2 1/2 lots per 1 acre rather than 1 lot per 2 1/2 acres which comes to 15,000 square foot is the minimum lot size. Then there's other restrictions. I believe that's in the ordinance. David Gatto: May I say, I'm David Gatto and I represent the. Scott: Well, wait a second. Wait a second. No. Planning Commission staff. Al-Jaff: Okay. The ordinance right now allows an overall density of 2 1/2 acres. One unit per 2 1/2 acres. You may reduce the size of the lot, as long as they would maintain the overall density. Scott: Then in the calculations the lot that will contain the existing retail, I'll say retail business is included as a lot. Al-Jaff: Correct. Scott: The outlots are also included as a lot from a standpoint of density calculations. Al-Jaff: Right. Mancino: It doesn't matter what their uses are? Al-Jaff: Correct. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Sharmin Al-Jaff continued with her staff report. Mancino: I just have one more, if I can ask. Thank you Sharmin. And that is, this is guided for residential large lot. So that means residential large lot is 1 unit per 2.5 acres. Is that correct? Al-Jaff: That's correct. Scott: The question is, is that the density? Are we talking guided for a specific density or guided for a minimum lot size or both. Al-Jaff: That's grandfathered in. Aanenson: Right now it's currently, as you recall, we have not... Right now we say 1 per 10. If you recall that in 1987 we changed, based on the Met Council, they didn't want urban sprawl, to allow 2 1/2 acre lots. So we went back and changed that based on the Met Council's 1 per 10. Recently the Met Council said, that's creating some sprawl in a different way so what we said is you can have, you can go as small as 15,000 square feet as long as you could provide 2 drainfield sites in that septic. So if you have 40 acres and wanted to cluster 4 units, you could do that. As small as 15,000 square foot lots as long as you provide services. So when services do become available, we don't have the sprawl. And that's a separate issue from this. What Sharmin is saying is we're going by the grandfather rights that were given to them by the City Council at the 1 per 2.5 so that's what we're operating under. He was given extensions by the City Council. So they're two separate things. The 1 per 2, the old pre-'87 which he is operating under. Mancino: And now my question is, in the future we have several large lot developments. We have Timberwood and we have lots of them around the city and we passed an ordinance that says that those must stay 2 1/2 acres. They can't subdivide into 15,000 square feet. Aanenson: The reason for that is preserving the integrity of those rural areas. If they all want to come in and petition the city as a group to change. What we don't want is to have individuals within there splitting off where people have bought into a rural atmosphere and that sort of thing. So that's the intent of this. Mancino: And you need 100% participation? Or close to. Aanenson: Whatever the Council decides is appropriate. 15 CITY OF ,0 ,. oft CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 N MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director DATE: August 11, 1994 SUBJ: Report from Director On August 8, 1994, the City Council took the following actions: 1. Olivewood Addition (Neumann subdivision) was given final plat approval. 2. Final plat approval was give for Minger Addition. 3. Approval of City Code amendment regarding time limits for an accessory structure to be removed after the primary structure has been removed or destroyed. 4. Approval of first reading of the BF, Fringe Business district section of the City Code to allow additional permitted, conditional and interim uses. 5. Approval of first reading of the code amendment for the city wide application of "bluff." 6. Approval of first reading of the City Code and comprehensive plan amendment to adopt the Surface Water Management Plan. 7. Approval of the first reading of the code amendment to the shoreland overlay district. Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Scott: Good. Ongoing items, seeing none. Open discussion. DISCUSS CONCEPT OF ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX. Brad Johnson and Truman Howell presented slides and a presentation, on an informal basis, to the Planning Commission regarding architecture and ideas for the entertainment complex to be located in the downtown area. The meeting was then adjourned. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 53 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Aanenson: And landscaping. There were some issues, yeah. The Coffman development, Shadow Ridge, they did give conceptual approval on that but again there were a lot of issues on that. You talked about the slope and the wetland and that was one that we had...The Council did ask that when it goes to final plat, normally we put those on consent, that they have an opportunity to revisit that again because there were a lot of conditions. A lot of issues so they want to make sure that that was addressed. The interim use permit for the grading on Mission Hills was approved. And then the Council discussed quite a bit time the proposed entry monuments. They went to the HRA and then to the Council and before the Council...you wanted an opportunity to see that but there were some issues that were brought up about the types that they were looking at...low key Chanhassen entry sign...landscaping. Then we got into a big discussion about the cost. Maintenance costs and that sort of thing so a little bit more, Council wants to see a little bit more...about costs before they decide to go... with that anymore so that will come back before the Council before you have an opportunity to see it. Ledvina: Are they going to make any decisions on that? Aanenson: I think...just an idea and then it will come back through you to hold the public hearing...and then go back up. Right now they're just trying to develop some concepts and look at costs... Ledvina: That's going back between the HRA and the Council and we haven't seen anything. Aanenson: I think what they're trying to do is deciding what they want to do. They've got a lot of issues... Mancino: I think I read, was it the paper. The newspaper or the Chanhassen Villager that Councilman Senn had suggested that maybe the businesses participate and especially the entrance around the downtown because that is something. Aanenson: Well the one we're really trying to work on now is most specifically the one on Powers because we've got the, with the Outlot B and Target. The Taco Bell which you'll be seeing next week. We want to make sure that... Mancino: Next week? Ledvina: No, 2 weeks. Aanenson: That we have a nice entryway. And again... 52 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the ordinance revision for Section 20-1181(b)(4) specifying the dispersion of interior parking lot landscaping islands, peninsulas and boulevards. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 20, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Aanenson: I'm sorry I didn't put anything in your packet... Lotus Lake Woods which is the plat on the Forcier property was given a one year extension...it was a pretty straight plat so we feel comfortable giving them a one year extension. The Minger subdivision approval. We only had 3 council people so that needed a rezoning and a rezoning needed 4/5 majority so just the plans and specs and the grading permit was approved for that. At the next Council meeting they'll approve the rezoning so they can move forward with that plat. Again, Good Value Homes which is the O'Shaughnessy piece which is immediately west of the school. That was, the applicant wasn't at the City Council meeting two weeks ago. The last City Council meeting they asked to be removed and we are meeting with them on Friday. I think they're going to go forward with a little bit, what's south of the frontage road extension as it goes towards the Opus property and come in with the twin homes...He is going to go forward with that portion...so we'll be meeting with him on Friday. Ledvina: Now that went through us, right? That's a PUD? Aanenson: Yep. And they never went to Council. Ledvina: Okay, so but they've made changes now and now they're going to go to Council? Is that how it's. Aanenson: No. He's asking not to go to Council. He just wants to go forward with just one portion instead of the whole development which had the rental on the north side... Ledvina: Okay, so it's a phasing more or less then. Aanenson: Yeah, right. Mancino: Didn't we ask to see new grading there or something? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Is there any discussion? Jeff. Farmakes: I have no comments on this. I'll go with the staff recommendation. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: I just have a couple questions. Does it, when you divide it up like this, is it enough square footage for a big overstory tree which has a fairly big span, drip line span, is that a big enough area? Has somebody really figured it out? Aanenson: Yeah. Well that's the minimum. We've also got a provision in here where we think, I mean if we've got an existing tree, a canopy area that you want to preserve, that you can allow... Mancino: Because I know one of the things when we first created this or worked on it was allowing some massing. Aanenson: Yeah. What it says is that...unless there's a tree preservation area...try to preserve trees...that's a good question though. We certainly wouldn't want to destroy that. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Scott: Good, Matt. Ledvina: No comments. I support staff's recommendation. Scott: Could I have a motion? Mancino: I move that we approve the ordinance revision for Section 20-1181(b)(4) specifying the dispersion of interior parking lot landscaping islands, peninsulas and boulevards. Scott: Is there a second? Ledvina: I'll second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we pass this item. Is there any discussion? 50 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 33. Outlot A is currently used as the nursery business and should be platted into a lot and block. The final plat should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains Golfview Estates. 34. That staff and applicant work together to make sure that the future road in the southeast corner of the plat not infringe on the bluff. That it adheres the new bluff ordinance. 35. The 1 unit per 2.5 acre is based on the actual land to be platted. Specifically does not include the future development area which is not owned by Don Halla. 36. Covenants be provided for the new property owners informing of the days and hours of operation of the retail commercial site and if any changes are made to those hours and days, that the property owners be informed of such changes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: Any people who are here tonight, please follow your issue. You'll have the opportunity to express your concerns, ideas, comments to the City Council. And once again, this is not final approval of the project at all. This is the first phase. Basically what it does is it gives the developers a little bit more certainty that the project is moving ahead so they can then invest additional dollars to answer some of the additional questions that we have. Thank you all very much for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CITY CODE SECTION 20- 1181(B)(4) REGARDING INTERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEHICULAR USE AREAS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Oh yes, it is a public hearing. There's really no applicant. What I will do is I'll ask for a motion to open the public hearing. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on the public hearing? I don't think so. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant is also proposing to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff recommends that the existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to improve sight lines and berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height. b. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive shall be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet MnDOT standards for sight distance at the posted speeds. c. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose sight distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented by the applicant's engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the posted speeds. 25. The applicant shall be required to re-excavate all unacceptable materials in the ravine on Lot 3, Block 6 and backfill with engineered fill as well as replace the existing storm drainage pipe (24-inch CMP) with concrete pipe. 26. The applicant's engineer should redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D") to accommodate the existing significant trees that are alive yet. 27. The applicant shall provide for the future looping of the two street systems through Outlot A from Golfview Circle or Golfview Court. Outlot A shall have no additional access granted for TH 101. 28. Halla Nursery Vista road east of Trunk Highway 101 should be realigned to follow the private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road. 29. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County that appropriate right-of-way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one-half of the minimum 100-foot wide corridor for County Road 14. 30. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from County Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101. 31. The applicant shall revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be continuous with Foxford Road at the intersection of County Road 14. 32. The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Trunk Highway 101 right-of-ways. In addition, the grading plan shall show all proposed grading as a result of drainage improvements, street and house construction. The applicant's engineer shall work with staff in developing a revised storm drainage plan to accommodate plat revisions. 17. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100-year high water level. All storm water ponds shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes. 18. The outlet from the existing pond behind the nursery shall be re-routed and directed through Pond "B." 19. Existing wells and septic systems on the site which are not to be utilized shall be properly abandoned in accordance with City or State codes. 20. The applicant shall be responsible for the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees based in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The requirement for cash fees in lieu of land or permanent pond construction shall be based upon the schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. 21. 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. 22. The developer shall convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for future construction of storm drainage infrastructures over Oudot D, Great Plains Golf Estates. 23. Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the plat has been revised to accommodate staff' changes in the plat's street and lot configuration. The developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with revised detailed storm sewer drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm drainage system on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat. 24. The applicant shall modify the plans and incorporate the following safety improvements: a. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery 47 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 9. The applicant will need to provide revised detailed storm calculations for 10 and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality and quantity ponds in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall retain on site the predeveloped runoff rate as well as provided interim water quality and quantity ponds. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed storm water calculations for existing and proposed storm water basins. In addition, water quality pond design calculations shall be based on Walker's pondnet model. 10. The streets shall be constructed to the City's rural street section. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans shall be designed in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. 11. 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 final plat conditions of approval. 12. The applicant shall meet wetland fill and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in the Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity or excavation in future phases of the project. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all storm water drainageways and ponding areas lying outside the street right-of-ways. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the storm water ponding areas. Outlot A shall be platted as a lot and block. 15. The applicant's engineer shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 16. The grading plan shall be revised to relocate all berming outside street or trunk highway right-of-ways. The berm shall be limited to 4 feet high with 3:1 slopes along 46 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. 4. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be designed; shown on site plan; and, approved by the Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department. 5. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. 6. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings. This applies to homes which are in excess of 150 feet of State Hwy 101. 7. Street names: a. Maple Court is not acceptable. The City already has 5 streets with "Maple" in the name. b. The street between Hwy. 101 and County Road 14 is named both Birch Drive and Halla Nursery Vista. The street must have only one name. Eliminate Halla Vista Drive. c. Rename "Golf View Circle." Submit alternative name. 8. Building Department conditions: a. Use Carver County licensed septic site evaluator. b. Submit boring logs of borings done on each proposed ISTS site with a unique identification for each to Inspections Division. c. Stake and identify proposed property lines, proposed ISTS sites and perc and boring locations. d. Provide a preliminary evaluation report on the ISIS sites from Resource Engineering. e. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show standard dwelling type designations for proposed house pads. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Scott: Do you accept that? Mancino: I do. And I would like to add another recommendation. 37, that the retail commercial area have covenants with the proposed new landowners and it tells the opening and closing times so that people up front know when the opening and closing times is of the retail commercial area. What days of the week. The hours. What kind of activity will go on and if those are changed, it has to meet the approval of the landowners in the subdivision. Scott: Especially with the loudspeaker and equipment operation. Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we act on the motion. Is there any discussion? Any additional discussion. All those in favor of the motion. Ledvina: Excuse me Mr. Chairman. I don't know that, did we second the motion? Mancino: I don't know. Farmakes: I'll second the motion. Scott: Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #86-31 for Great Plains Golf Estates as shown on the plans dated June 6, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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 unless the city's (BMPH) 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. 2. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. 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. 3. Lot 4, 5, 7, and 8 Block 3, shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Ledvina: I would move that we table the preliminary plat, Case # 86-31 SUB to subdivide 102.73 acres into 36 rural single family lots and two outlots, Great Plains Golf Estates. Scott: Is there a second? Would you like to second that? Okay, I'll second that motion. Is there any discussion? Mancino: Yeah, I think my discussion would be that we send it on with our various recommendations and if for any reason it does not meet the individual sewer, septic, that it will come back because it will have to be redrawn. The plat will have to be redrawn so that those mounds can be installed and will be here. If there's any significant changes, it will come back in front of the Planning Commission. Farmakes: I agree. I think the conditions cover the open ended parts with preliminary. I think it gives staff the idea what information we're looking for I guess when it comes back as a final plat. Ledvina: Well I initially thought that when I was looking at this and I know that staff has worked hard in developing these conditions. I don't think that's unreasonable. I guess I would withdraw my motion at this time. Scott: Okay. Can I have a new motion please? Mancino: I move, with a little support from others, I move that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #86-31 for Great Plains Golf Estates as shown on the plans dated June 6, 1994 subject to the following conditions. As is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, a, b, c, 8, a, b, c, d, e, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, a, b, c, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33. And I'd like to add condition 34. That staff and applicant work together to make sure that the future road in the southeast corner of the plat not infringe on the bluff. That it adheres the new bluff ordinance. Number 35. Recommendation that the 1 unit per 2.5 acre is based on the actual land to be platted. Specifically does not include the future development area which is not owned by Don Halla. And have I missed anything? Ledvina: A friendly amendment? Mancino: Yes. Ledvina: I would like to amend condition number 27 to indicate that, to add that for future development of currently identified Outlot A, there shall be no additional access granted for Trunk Highway 101. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Ledvina: But if it's not identified on our plans here, how do we deal with that? Hempel: It's still a lot of record... Ledvina: But if these are our reference documents here. Hempel: Basically what I'm trying to say is...runoff or the volume of runoff will increase. Therefore causing downstream drainage improvements...eventually constructed. Ledvina: Yeah, I'm tracking with you. I guess just in terms of the nuts and bolts of this thing I'm just wondering, because I didn't really take a look at that. I didn't, well I'll let that go. The situation with Resource Engineering and the reimbursement. Is that reimbursement to the city, is that a typical thing and should that be done in this case maybe for future thoughts associated with evaluation of those sites? What's your reaction to that? Kirchman: We've had Mr. Halla establish an escrow fund and if his escrow fund is depleted we add additional funds to it to pay for Resources Engineering. Ledvina: So in the past he has been reimbursing the expenses of Resource Engineering? Kirchman: That's correct. Ledvina: Okay. And that's standard operating procedures? Kirchman: That's correct. Ledvina: Well I think overall this is a very complicated plat and there's a lot of specific things that are going on here. It's a very beautiful piece of property and it's going to be a very nice area to live in certainly for the new residents here. I think that I would like to see this thing moved forward but in my opinion, at this point, I think we need a little more work with getting closer on some of these conditions. I'm a little bit uncomfortable in terms of our calculations and I think many of these things can be resolved. Scott: Dave, can I put you on the spot for a second? That piece of property that's slated or identified as future development looks like it's about 450 by I don't know, 600 or something. If that piece of property is 14 acres, maybe 13 acres. If it's 15 acres, that makes the density 2.3 so I guess in my mind too, I mean that can obviously be changed. They can take out a couple of lots and make some of them larger to meet it but as this stands right now, just from my rough mathematics, it doesn't meet the density requirement. But I mean that's, once again, that's something that can be changed. But can I have a motion please? 42 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 essentially covers the requirements here. I think, I don't know. Do we have essentially 5 conditions but I guess the last situation is if you've got a platted lot and you can't find the septic site on it, do you just go ahead and say, all of a sudden the lot is, or not all of a sudden but you say that the lot is unbuildable. Aanenson: We don't give preliminary plat approval. We never give final plat approval until all these conditions are demonstrated to our satisfaction. So what we're, the position that we're saying is that yes, there's a lot of conditions. There's a lot of work to do. What we're saying, based on the fact that he has done a lot of septic site exploration based on the two previous...give preliminary plat approval until he demonstrates that he can meet all these conditions... We wouldn't create a lot unless he can meet... Ledvina: Okay, I didn't know that. I thought this was going to be carried all the way through until the time when the lot would be. Aanenson: No, no. And then until these conditions are met, we wouldn't go forward. That's why there's a lot of conditions. Ledvina: Okay. Just a point of clarification for condition number 22. It says Outlot D. I think you mean Pond D, is that correct? As it relates, you're talking about the drainage and. Condition number 22, page 17. Fourth condition here. Hempel: Actually the point of clarification...I guess, this is the previous plat that was approved back in '89. The development will retain ownership of the piece that's right adjacent to the ravine where the storm water drains underneath Creekwood. It drains off a ravine. They would like to acquire or have the applicant dedicate to the city a drainage utility easement sometime in the future when we need to develop a storm sewer system to resolve that erosion that's occurring down in the ravine... Ledvina: Okay. So this is near Creekwood. It's not by Pond A necessarily? Hempel: I'll show you on the map. Ledvina: I might have misread my map but. Hempel: Actually...down here... Ledvina: Do I have that map? Is it an 8 112 x 11 map? Hempel: Yes. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Hempel: That's what we're predicting... Ledvina: I know that's what you mean in the condition but maybe it can be a lot clearer. A little more clear. Now I'm a little bit unclear as to being on the road issue. TH 101 itself, where that hairpin curve is. What's shown on the plat is essentially a straightening of that curve. Now, and you seem to indicate that the city has right-of-way now for that improvement of that curve. What's the situation there? Hempel: That's correct. The previous plat submitted back in '89, the city did require that the applicant dedicate future road right-of-way for the upgrade of TH 101. 120 foot wide strip of land. That has been dedicated. Ledvina: That's from the property owner from the east? Hempel: That's from the Halla's. From the property...plat has not been dedicated yet. Ledvina: So half of that. Half of that area is dedicated. Hempel: Right, the north half through the proposed plat. Ledvina: Alright, okay. And when would that upgrade occur? I mean if you could look into your crystal ball, is that 10 years? 5 years? What are you saying? Hempel: It depends on the...development pressure. As traffic increases with development. Ledvina: Is this going to be another one of those safety kind of things? Because this looks like a more serious alignment issue. Hempel: That's correct. This was not going to be... Ledvina: Okay. The system for, the situation with the individual soil treatment systems, the information that's provided in the staff report certainly leads one to believe that there's a lot of work to be done here. And it's kind of a catch-22 scenario with the developer and I understand that because he's got to spend the money to go out and do the soil borings and all the evaluations but then he's got to go back and then set the property lines and it's kind of a back and forth process and if those don't quite work, you know he ends up going back out in the field again. But I think, and I know that's a bad situation but I think this isn't your normal site in terms of that scenario. Or a normal scenario for siting septic systems. You have all the pre-existing uses here that have disturbed the soils. Poor soils generally to start out with, as I understand. And I guess I know we have in the conditions, condition number 8 40 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Hempel: ...probably add 8 more homes. Ledvina: Yeah, 8 homes. All of Block 2. Actually Block 1 and Block 2. So essentially your view of the situation though is that the existing situation is adequate in terms of the width of the pavement. You did mention that there will be some grading and drainage improvements on the north side of that road? Hempel: That's correct...but we have not proposed to do widening or improving...what's there. ...an improvement at the intersection of Trunk Highway 101. Ledvina: Okay. I had a question in the staff report and maybe I didn't read this properly but it seems to say that if Outlot A is platted as a lot, they would not have access to TH 101. Now I've got to maybe go back to the staff report and maybe if I could point this out. Maybe I'm just not interpreting this correctly. Page 7 on the bottom of the last full paragraph. It says since no further access will be allowed off of Trunk Highway 101, provisions for looping two street systems through Outlot A from Golfview Circle or Golfview Court should be explored by the applicant. Does that mean that you're closing the access to TH 101 from Outlot A? Hempel: The intent there was to provide a looped street in the future when you subdivide the nursery by itself. Maybe 10 years down the road if they ever decided to replat. Scott: Well that's not going to affect their ability to do business or anything like that. Hempel: Not at this time, no. Ledvina: Okay. Well I noted that that was one of your ideas in terms of the future development but it wasn't identified as a condition. Do you think it's appropriate as a condition? As it relates to future development. Maybe MnDot would take care of that by their review of any future development in saying that you've got on here. You've got one here. There's no way you can, you know everything's going to have to be internal after that. But is there something that we should do here? Hempel: I believe condition number 27 on page 18. Ledvina: Okay, there it is. I guess through Outlot A. Maybe you should make it a little more emphatic in terms of the no further access will be allowed off of TH 101. I think that really gets to the point of what we're trying to say right there, right? I mean you're saying that it can loop through there but you're not saying that you can't have the outlot. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Scott: They don't own it and it's not part of the plat yet it was used to calculate density? Al-Jaff: Correct. Scott: Correct, okay. Ledvina: Going onto the southeast corner of the development. There's a small area. It's about, a little more than 2 acres. What is that area? It's not identified as a lot but it's identified within the plat. Al-Jaff: I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question. Ledvina: The area in the very southwest corner of the parcel. It's not identified as a lot yet, what is that? Al-Jaff: There's an existing single family home. Ledvina: Okay. Is the...to identify that as part of that in terms of the Block and Lot numbers and such? Al-Jaff: It is part of the overall plat. It was approved on July 9th, 1989. This parcel right here. Ledvina: Alright. It wasn't clear to me what was on there. The, I'm going to jump around a little bit but the situation with Creekwood. I know for one of the residents that spoke, one of the staff recommendations is that the name of Creekwood remain the same so we're tracking with the residents on that. The situation with the widening of Creekwood, is that going to be required as part of this development? Where we are bringing more traffic out into that area. How are we dealing with that? Hempel: As with this staff report now we did not recommend upgrading of Creekwood. ...last week it appears to be about 22 feet wide and a normal rural street is 24 feet wide which would be the streets built within the Halla plat... There are grading and those type of issues that would be...with the plat. Scott: But isn't the majority of the traffic, at least during the summer months, has to do with Bluff Creek and not with any residents? The golf course. That's the access to Bluff Creek. So adding 3 more homes is probably not going to change, I mean in the winter it will have a slight impact but during the summer, it probably won't. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Scott: Matt. Ledvina: Okay, following up on the outlot situation. You mentioned that there are two outlots I believe in the report. But I don't see, I only see Outlot A as identified. Is this area identified future development in the southeast corner of the parcel, is that considered Outlot B? Al-Jaff: Correct. Ledvina: Is that right? Am I misreading that or is that labeled on the plan? Or I didn't find it. Al-Jaff: ...as an outlot and we're recommending that it be... Ledvina: Okay, so. Don Halla: I don't own that property. Scott: Excuse me. The public hearing is closed. Ledvina: So that's not part of the plat? Don Halla: No. Ledvina: It's not part of the plat. Future development. Scott: Could you direct that question to staff please? Al-Jaff: It was...part of the plat... Ledvina: I thought it was part of the plat too. It's indicated here on our drawings as part of the plat. So it's not part of the plat? Al-Jaff: Well the 102 acres includes that piece of property. Ledvina: Okay. And they don't own it and it's not part of the plat. Scott: Well then has it been used in the density calculations? ...okay, wait a second. Ledvina: But there's an error in the density calculations then if that's not part of the plan. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 bigger problem. Dave, I have a question for you about the Block 6. This is between Block 4 and Block 6 there is a future road in that southeast corner that abuts the bluff. And I know that this isn't final roadway. You know exactly where it will go but I just wanted to share my concern with where that roadway goes to the southern property which says future development. It seems to cut into the bluff area. And I would like that to be studied and made sure of the grading so that we keep, I think we have a new ordinance that says what, 40 feet away from top of the bluff. Hempel: He's going to take a look at that. It does appear to encroach on the... Mancino: So I'd like that added to our recommendations. Secondly Dave, how are we going to be accessing in the future, and I see staff's concerns, the property to the south of Block 4. I understand that future road going to the future development which leads to this but coming a little more west but still east of TH 101 we have those 3 property owners and part of that question is, their easement goes out to TH 101, is there room between the new Halla Nursery Vista Road on TH 101 and the easement that these people live off of? And is there enough distance between the two? Is there 300 feet? Doesn't it have to be 300 feet? Hempel: It appears based on this drawing that there is the 300 foot separation on the access point. MnDot does have control on accesses onto trunk highways...jurisdiction to grant this access...and that's why, if I could back up to your first concern with access to the property south of Block 4 and south of that private driveway, that's where in the staff report we thought it was prudent to make use of the current road alignment. That it's better to expand on it to serve properties to the south as well as the subdivision for Halla. The plat configuration on the east side can very easily be rearranged to accommodate this and to just circle...We'd be happy to look at the applicant to demonstrate...that access that private road... We have received numerous complaints as far as maintenance goes on that road. It's kind of a...not even a city road. Mancino: Well I agree with that recommendation. I think that has to be looked at. And I do support keeping that slope for the conservation easement and allowing no penetration into there without a lot of grading. I think that is the one area and it is the only area that we're asking to keep in it's natural state with the trees there. Sharmin, are we applying the tree preservation ordinance on this? I mean what percentage needs to be? Al-Jaff: ...landscaping plan has not been submitted with the application and that is one of the conditions of approval. Mancino: Thank you. Again I'd like to thank staff for a very, very comprehensive report and good recommendations. Thank you. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Audience: Excuse me...talk louder. Mancino: Can you hear me? Audience: No. Mancino: Can you hear me? I feel like I'm screaming. Okay. When you, Halla has grown. It has a new building this year. Now I'm not saying it hasn't grown in acreage but it has upgraded it's building. It is doing a good retail business. And then we put a subdivision around it. Lots of people who want to live in their homes and they want it to be quiet, as we've all heard tonight. How do those two go together in the future? I mean we're talking about, we've heard about outdoor speakers going on at 10:00 at night. We hear about 7:00 in the morning and I've heard the music there because I was over visiting and actually took a ride through the property. And it's not classical...or anything. I mean it's pretty hip music. Don't we, I mean we're going to get citizens in. We're going to get homeowners. We're going to get people just like you and me in here all the time asking or requesting some sort of a limitation on hours. And does that need to be part of this or. Aanenson: ...the nursery was there first. They're a grandfathered in here. If people want to buy...they have been grandfathered in. Mancino: But are these hours grandfathered in? I mean we have asked other commercial areas. I'm thinking about the one that was here earlier, Admiral Waste. We have them hours from Monday thru Friday. Aanenson: They asked for an interim use permit so we have control over... Mancino: So does a grandfathered use mean that you can have any hours anytime? Aanenson: They're limited to what they had when they were established. Mancino: So what is that? Aanenson: We're trying to determine some of that right now. Scott: But then there's also noise ordinances and that sort of thing. Mancino: Well I think it would be wise for Halla to work with the homeowners around and establish some sort of, and have it written down and have it in the covenants so that people know what it will be and get that straighten out before because I can see this becoming a 35 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 out and when they come up with it. They have a very large lot and then of course it adds to these smaller lots that...and we've been through that before on a lot of these different developments. I'm not sure on the TH 101, I believe that the State will determine how that lays out. Do we not make a suggestion on how we would like to see it? MnDot makes that decision. Is that how that works? Scott: I think you can talk about the special status of Highway 101, again. Mancino: And who pays for it and. Scott: Yeah, and how that works. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Trunk Highway 101 is classified as...the applicant and/or city to petition MnDot to provide the funding for safety improvements...we've done similar improvements along TH 101 north of Highway 5 where we have added on turn lanes. Right turn lanes on Cheyenne and Pleasant View. Those types of intersections. MnDot does fund those 100%. The problem that, and so you're looking at a minimum of 2 years out right now for MnDot to consider that. They get all these requests from different communities for safety improvements on the trunk highways. Throw them in a kitty. Prioritize them based on safety and let each community know each year which qualify and which don't. Right now...minimum of 2 years out. Scott: Okay, and those we have already petitioned MnDot for those improvements? Hempel: No, we have not. Scott: Okay. So that's something that perhaps we would want to do? Soon. Hempel: ...appropriate with the plat approval. - Scott: Okay. So that's, okay. Farmakes: I'll pass it on... Scott: Nancy. Mancino: I have a few questions and I may need to come back too. I guess I have some questions about, this is for Sharmin. When we are doing a subdivision around a retail commercial area. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Audience: Could you use the loudspeaker, we can't hear you. Farmakes: Can you hear me? Audience: No. Scott: You're as loud as it can go? Okay. Farmakes: I'll just try to speak louder. I'm not quite certain, as I understand it, the 2 1/2 acres is the average, correct? That's the way it's works. Maybe that could be explained or that, you're referring to them as funny numbers. Sometimes they do appear to be funny numbers but the way that the ordinances are set up and the way that the situation with the development of the city between the applicant and the city, they use a formula. David Gatto: Jeff, I read the ordinance... Scott: Excuse me. The public hearing is closed. David Gatto: Well then the City Attorney ought to speak to it because the city ordinance says minimum 2 1/2 acres per lot. I read it the day before yesterday. Farmakes: That's correct but as I understand, there's also a commitment to the city and the applicant. Is that correct? Perhaps what I'm saying is, perhaps you should discuss that with city staff so that you're understanding of that also. David Gatto: Well city staff also explained their extension expired 5 years after 1987... Scott: Excuse me, the public hearing is closed. David Gatto: I understand but your commissioner is addressing me Chairman. Farmakes: I'm not expecting a response. I'm just making a suggestion that you and the city are comfortable with the information that you have. David Gatto: I'm not comfortable. Farmakes: Okay. Getting back to the drainfields, I'm still uncomfortable with that report. It didn't seem inclusive to me. There's a lot of things that this development seems to be still left out to interpretation or subject to taking out. I'm not sure if there's that much concern about the issues of 2 1/2 acres or 2.2 or 2.4 or so I'm not sure how that formulation works 33 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 develop? We haven't heard anything about that. I know that might impact the development and the current people that live in that area right now. Oh, okay. So you don't know what they're planning on? No word whether they're going to do anything with that property? Sell it or keep it or, okay. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Okay. David Gatto: Yeah Joe. You know I represent a lot of the people that are here. Scott: Can you step up to the microphone so we can get it on the public record. David Gatto: Joe, once again, I'm representing an association of Lake Riley Woods homeowners and a lot of those people are the people that are out here in the audience and we just wanted one speaker. Scott: We appreciate that. David Gatto: So if you look around and people aren't saying anything. Scott: Yeah, we appreciate that. David Gatto: And if I didn't say enough for anybody, but go ahead. Scott: Well we appreciate that. It's important that we get citizen comment and we obviously hear from applicants. We like to hear from citizens and it's especially appreciated when it makes sense to have people speak on behalf of an association. Obviously people may or may not be within an association that are always welcome to come in. I'd like to thank you all for doing that. If there's no one else who would like to speak. Roger Anderson: Could I briefly summarize for the applicant? Scott: No. No. No. Please sit. Could I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments, Jeff. Farmakes: I had some concerns about the drainfields and...seemed a little open ended to me. I'd like to see those closed up. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 backed up on County Road 14. You mentioned the traffic in the morning and you can't get out onto CR 14. When we come home between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., that traffic is backed up for at least a mile. Or more sometimes. I too have a concern about the intercom system. The intercom system is on at 7:00 a.m. every morning and is on until 10:00 p.m. or later. They play music on the intercom system, which I don't appreciate. They have on occasion run Bobcats right outside of our property from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 or later. They have some noisy peacocks that screech like a cat who's got their tail caught in a vice. It's very annoying. Lack of fire station or equipment on the south side of Chanhassen for the size houses that are being proposed. I understand that if there were any fires there, that they would bring a fire truck with water tanks on them. And we don't believe that for those size houses that are being proposed, that that's going to be adequate. There are no parks or place for neighborhood children to walk or ride bikes on that narrow Creekwood street. A lot of us walk on that road and it's very, very dangerous from the traffic from the golf course. I know that's not Don's issue there but that road is, you can't have two way traffic on that street. The commercial property, we're concerned, is mixed up with the residential area. I can't believe that that's allowable. I mean to have that size of a commercial property and built up all around with houses. They're going to back right up onto that property. I wouldn't want to buy a house there. Concern about the chemicals that have been used by Halla running off into the neighborhood wells. There are noxious weeds growing along the wildflowers on both sides of Creekwood and the ravine area. I mean there's thistles and who knows what other kinds of weeds growing there. We would like to see Creekwood closed from TH 101 and make a new access on the south side of Halla's new shed. Why weren't the homeowners notified of the change in plans for only 3 houses previously planned for coming onto Creekwood? There have been several references to the park issue. I saw a sign on the staff report that a little area that was indicated to say that it was a park. Is there anything more that you can tell us about the park issue? Is there going to be some property designated for parks, or a park? Al-Jaff: The Park and Recreation Commission will be meeting on Tuesday to discuss this specific issue. Jan Sabinsky: Okay, Tuesday when? Al-Jaff: August 9th. I'm sorry, tomorrow. No, this August 9th. Tuesday, yes. Jan Sabinsky: Here at 7:30? Al-Jaff: Yes. Jan Sabinsky: Okay. And then is there any update on the plans for the golf course to 31 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 retirement. Well this is our home. We plan on staying there another 5 years. All of our three boys have been born and raised there and I'm concerned that TH 101 is going to go through part of my property or this private road is my road. It is on our property. There are 3 property owners. My husband and myself for the first stretch of the road. The next stretch, David Teich which farms his 5 acres next to us. And...property owner. The Halla nursery has an easement to use the road. I again don't mind having development either. I would actually rather have some nice 2 1/2 acre home sites be there rather than living with the nursery and all that. I'm tired of the big trucks going down the road and the loud speaker. You know I mean I just am. I just am. And so I'm not here to say I don't want this development. Actually I wouldn't want mind it at all as long as it's done very tastefully. Lake Riley Woods is gorgeous. We wanted to move over there but we'd lose some of our privacy and such. I just want to maintain my property and not have a public street bulldozed by I think 70 some huge, gigantic Norway pines in front of my home that I've babied for 15 years. Clipped around and...I just had to get up here and say you know, who I am and my situation. I guess that's it. Scott: Thank you very much. Anybody else like to speak? Yes ma'am. Jan Sabinsky: My name is Jan Sabinsky and my husband Jim and I live on 775 Creekwood. And I just wanted to take this opportunity also to list some of the issues we have regarding the proposed Halla addition. We too are not against the development if it's done in the proper way and if the lot size is at least 2.5 acres. But we have some other concerns and we would just like those to be stated here tonight so that the Planning Commission can take them into consideration. We would like to leave the street named Creekwood that we live on. Since we've moved there about 21 years ago we've changed our address, or they've changed the address on us about 4 times and we don't, we're tired of...all the people that send us mail, that our address is being changed again. We would not like you to issue the building permits until the roads and streets are done. No construction traffic on Creekwood. I don't know if you know the size of the Creekwood street but it's only about 20 feet wide. And there have been big trucks that have made the wrong turn on that road. There have been other construction trucks on that road and that road isn't meant to take that kind of traffic. We would not like to have any more out traffic on Creekwood. The Creekwood going out onto TH 101 is very dangerous. Every morning any given person that comes off Mandan or Creekwood could get hit. It's very difficult to see towards your left when you're coming out because of that hill. The paving of Creekwood was paid primarily by the homeowners. Halla paid only for 3 lots. And if he's going to be putting some more property on there, I would like to see the other property owners get some refund on that. As I said before, Creekwood is only 20 feet wide. It's too narrow for any hook and ladder fire trucks, if there should be any fires. The water runoff from Creekwood goes into the ravine. Halla's have a pond across the road from us and I believe it goes under Creekwood into the ravine. The traffic is 30 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 with regards to any kind of traffic studies or traffic impacts that may take place on Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail. I know that in the morning especially when everybody in our development has to turn east on Pioneer Trail, it's quite a chore because all the cars will stop at the stop light on Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail and I don't know what they're doing but it's really quite a chore to turn east there. If they were to keep that one road that's across from our association not aligned the way they have it, I think that will complicate the situation. So we appreciate the comment, if they do a development at all, to align their road with Foxford Road. I think that's a real necessary thing but in addition, I'm surprised there's no comments about a traffic study or impact in here. We think that we see in here that the applicant has provided $1,000.00 in escrow to pay for Resource Engineering and this process has gone on since '87. Not only with the city but Resource Engineering and I guess we'd like to know how much Resource Engineering has cost the city now and how much additional it may cost the city and maybe the applicant should be asked to pay additional funds if more studies are required. We would like the City Attorney to look into this outlot business. It doesn't seem to be a valid use, as Nancy said, that an outlot can be used as a commercial business in a residential area. That's kind of odd. It's clear additional exploration is needed to determine the suitability of the land for septic systems and again, just in summary, the Planning Commission should really table this issue while we clear up what this minimum 2 1/2 acre per lot business and get these funny numbers all out of the way. Again, we're not opposed to development but we really would like to see that the 2 1/2 acre minimum per lot upheld here. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes ma'am. Deborah Graffunder: Hi. My name is Deborah Graffunder and I am the property owner that is directly east of Halla Nursery. Scott: Could you give us your street address too please? Deborah Graffunder: Sure. 10001 Great Plains Blvd. I've lived across from the nursery for 15 years. It's my property where TH 101 has a sharp turn. I'm feeling, I wish my husband was here tonight. He's in Canada fishing and I can't even contact him but bear with me. Mancino: Excuse me, could you show us where you live? Scott: Just point it out. Deborah Graffunder: That's my property. We purchased the home 15 years ago...privacy and the space...extensively landscaped our home and our gardens. It's quite lovely. It's quite park like. I have a big concern here. I've heard Don make reference as to this is his 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 mound. Areas where original soil have been removed and replaced by tree transplanting activities likely will not be suitable for the installation of a sewage treatment mound. And they had another comment that, and I don't know whether Halla does this or not but where a nursery operation can...soil to a 3 foot depth to prune the roots of the trees, and they talked about that as creating a channel for the movement of soil water which isn't acceptable and again I want to point out that when we had to establish the locations for our mounds and our lots, the city was absolutely adamant that that land was virgin land. It's never been touched and to this day we can't plant, by ordinance, any trees or anything else on a secondary sewage systems that have been planted and that's a tough deal to live by when you have a lot out there and you're trying to shield yourself from Pioneer Trail and Highway 101 and some of the other areas that are really clogging themselves up with traffic. It seems as though that Halla has a history of ignoring some simple environmental conservation rules. Here on page 6 staff talks about Halla putting, and if the staff was familiar with this drainage basin. Apparently on the east side there's a drainage basin. In past dealings with the applicant in securing a grading permit to fill in a portion of the downstream ravine, it appears the applicant has been filling this ravine without the appropriate permit and with unacceptable materials such as landscaping debris and other materials that will settle over time and create erosion and shear failures on the bluff. That's kind of damaging to Mother Earth and I guess we're kind of surprised that a business such as Halla would engage in such a practice. There's another disturbing thing on page 11 where it talks about these folks haven't been, they haven't been cooperating with some of the city staff. Attempts to evaluate the proposed plat clearly have been made but the applicant's failure to work with the City ISTS evaluator makes thorough evaluation impossible at this time. You know, and I've heard what Mr. Anderson said. Who is Paul Krauss? What's his position? Scott: Well he was the Planning Director. David Gatto: Oh, so he's gone now? Scott: Correct. David Gatto: That's good. Because I was going to write a letter to the Mayor tomorrow. I think it's absolutely outrageous what he asked these people to do and if he made that dense development on the west side of Highway 101, I'm going to, well he's gone but I think that's absolutely outrageous that he told these folks to do that dense development. That had total disregard for what all the other homeowners wanted in the area. That would have been, I don't know how many other people you would have here but I mean you can see how interested we are when there's just the 2.04 acres. I suspect that in listening to what Mr. Anderson was saying about all the reports and the hoops that he's had to jump through, that maybe this comment is because that happened. Also I haven't seen any comments in here 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 we've got that signed. And that's just the people in our association. Since then we've heard of other folks and I believe some of them are here tonight...talk to you, that live outside of Lake Riley Woods. Lake Riley Woods is east of Highway 101, north of Pioneer Trail and there's a horseshoe shaped road called Foxford Road. That's, and then there's a couple cul- de-sacs. Also I'd like to know, and maybe the City Attorney's assistant can help me. How long was the extension valid that Halla was given when the city grandfathered him in in 1986? How long was the extension valid for? Al-Jaff: 5 years. David Gatto: Okay, thanks. And I'd also like to comment that during, well just recently here in 1994 this outlot that his retail establishment's on they did, I don't know if you want to call it an expansion or an improvement but an additional retail outlet was built on that in 1994 so I don't know all the particulars behind this grandfathering business but those folks have improved that during that time and added a substantial development on there, what they're calling their outlot and these folks are using that to determine some sort of an average density and like I'm saying, there's some funny numbers going on there and we don't like that. Okay. So and then I just want to move on. The staff report actually speaks to that problem on page 2. The folks say that the two outlots shown on the plan contain the existing businesses and residence. These outlots must be shown as lots. Allowing the outlots to remain will create a non-conforming situation. I appreciate staff pointing that out. Septic systems on a nursery, in Resource Engineering's report they've, I want to just, I know we all got this report probably on Monday. Maybe some other people had it on Friday. I want to point out some things. In Lake Riley Woods we are held to very strict standards on these septic systems. As a matter of fact, some of us made the mistake of planting some trees not right on the septic systems but near enough to septic systems where we raised some eyebrows with the inspectors. And we had to move our trees, some trees as small, we had to move some trees one foot in order to comply with the city ordinances. And so we appreciate the strict controls that Steve and his people have on those septic systems. I heard Mr. Anderson talk a little while ago and kind of pooh pooh some of Resource Engineering's report saying well this is all in there and we've got information that says these septic systems will work and what not. But Resource Recoveries got a couple good comments in here. On page 2 of 13 they say, there is adequate area for individual on site sewage treatment systems as presented on the proposed plat. There are other factors which are equally important leading to the conclusion that none of the lots as presented in the proposed plat are suitable. This is in their initial summary. Summary and introduction part. On page 9 of 13, they talk about the operations that the nursery had and they say the operation of the nursery may have much more concentrated and machinery travel than a farm field would cross it such as corn, soybean, hay, etc. are grown and harvested. If the soil profiles at a depth of 1 or 2 feet has been...or removed, that location is likely not suitable for installation of a sewage treatment 27 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 some comments. I've got, there's a, I guess we want to make it clear to Mr. Halla that we don't oppose the development of the area but we've got a fairly unanimous petition here that says that we absolutely want the lots to be 2 1/2 acres absent of all the funny math and all the outlots and the various things going on. One can easily see, without even pulling out a calculator, that some of those lots are not 2 1/2 acres. And as a matter of fact, I did some arithmetic and the average lot size, if you add up the lot square feet and divide by the number of lots, you get 2.04 acres per lot. So not only can you just simply see that some of them aren't 2 1/2 acres but the average is substantially less than 2 1/2 acres. Scott: Just the ordinance allows for outlots and. Aanenson: Well there's a gross and net. We may need to get some additional...but again we're falling into...was given so many units under that preliminary plat. Since that time we've allowed some flexibility as far as lot sizes go. He's got the same number of lots. What he's done is he's clustered them differently. Scott: The ordinance allows for a minimum of 15,000 square foot lot. But the average density is. Aanenson: He's still maintaining that. And that's what we're saying. He's still maintaining the average density. It's just the. Scott: And the calculations allowed by the ordinance allow for the inclusion of outlots and then the existing, the retail area as well as the growing range that will exist until some further time. I just wanted to make sure that we all understand what the ordinance is. David Gatto: When you speak ordinances, are you talking about the present ordinance? Let's clarify that now. Aanenson: Okay, what we're saying is that he was given under this 1987 plat or '86 plat, he was given so many units on so much acreage. Okay, that hasn't changed. David Gatto: Alright, that's good because that first plat we were showed, that we showed up there from 1987 shows the outlot developed and my guess is that has a minimum lot size of 2 1/2 acres. That's all we're, in fact we've got petitions. We have petitions from 29 people in Lake Riley Woods that we can submit and it says we respectfully petition that Halla Nursery should not be allowed to redevelop their property any smaller than 2.5 acres and that the minimum square footage requirements of 14,000 square feet, that's housing, be established in order to preserve the value of the properties surrounding Halla and maintaining aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood at the level adhered to when our homes were built. Okay, so 26 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Ledvina: Mr. Chairman. The staff report indicates that the borings for the proposed sites haven't been submitted. You've indicated that the borings have done. Can you clarify this discrepancy? Roger Anderson: The borings have been done for two previous layouts and those are the, there are 140 some borings that we have out on the site. For the exact configuration that we have right now, we did not have a site evaluator go out and take brand new borings and do the site evaluation for the reasons I explained earlier. We felt that we've been through enough changes where if we spent the $5,000.00, whatever it was, already knowing that the soil borings in general indicated there isn't a problem, and also knowing that the lots of this size, if we do some minor adjustments in the location, extremely likely that we'll find a spot that will function satisfactorily. We felt it was best to wait until we get the feedback from the Planning Commission that we're on the right track as far as layout goes. Then we'd be happy to provide the information. Scott: ...what your answer was. The information exists but it has not been presented? Roger Anderson: The requirement of the code is that the borings be taken at a certain location with two borings in each one of the sites. And we have taken, as I indicated, 140 borings out there. Not precisely at that location but enough to get a good general feel for the whole site. Scott: So are the borings that have been taken that you have the information on, because the lot lines have shifted or something like that inbetween plats, they no longer apply to the plat that we have in front of us tonight. Roger Anderson: That's correct. Scott: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood that. Do you have any other questions? Good. Is anyone else from the applicant wish to speak? Okay. Thank you. Well we'll, can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If anybody would like to speak about this issue, please step forward. Identify yourself. Name and address and let us know what's on your mind. David Gatto: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members. My name is David Gatto and I'm here representing the Lake Riley Woods Homeowners Association. I've got some question and 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 suggested by the staff, which is a requirement to remove some of the nutrients and control the runoff. So I think we've done a reasonably good job of addressing the runoff considerations with the eye towards treat the water for phosphorous and no more of the water will run off now than, or in the future than has right now and that's generally the guidelines we follow. There are a couple of particular issues with the drainage that we're concerned about. The existing nursery site, or the retained nursery site would be about 11 1/2 acres and I believe indicated in the report, approximately 40 acres of the golf course to the west drains easterly across Mr. Halla's property and into a pond that is behind the nursery and then under TH 101 and into a fairly deep ravine east of the highway. That's a substantial amount of water and the city's storm water management plan reviews that information and layout and provides storm water ponding there. But it seems to us the suggestion in the report that we reroute that water and retain it and treat it as a part of this plat may be stretching things a bit. I think that needs a look also where such a good portion of the golf course is coming through, is it a reasonable expectation for Mr. Halla to have to provide for that with this platting. We don't think so but we think there's some questions can be answered there. In addition, at the northerly portion of this site, we're providing a pond for nutrient reduction that we feel can stay in place and the staff had suggested. Now I'll point it out over here. Mancino: What do you mean the existing one? Roger Anderson: The water from that pond flows northerly into the wetland on the north side of the county road. We provided a NURP pond there to treat the available runoff and we feel that will do a reasonably good job up to NURP standards. The staff is suggesting that Mr. Halla contribute to the long range pond construction fund of the city and we think that needs a look to see what his actual obligation should be. And the other area is the red circle which is Pond B on the right hand side which is the pond that was actually created, how long ago Don? Don Halla: Probably back at about 1970 through design and so forth the...stabilization work. Roger Anderson: Both the Pond B and the pond in the nursery were created as part of the soil conservation service or the agricultural stabilization people and they have outlets in design and parameters based on the information that they use and those ponds are in and working fine. The city has asked for some upgrades. I think we need, that was another question we had. Just what has to happen there. So there are a lot of issues here. I haven't hit all of them but hopefully as briefly as I could, hit the predominant things that we're concerned with and some of the things we're trying to do to get a good quality plat for the city. With that I'll answer any questions that the Planning Commission members may have. Scott: Good, thank you. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Roger Anderson: The next area I'd like to address briefly is on the individual soil treatment sites. A substantial amount of the information provided is regarding how this site would be served. How we'd get mound systems in there. What the requirements may be and some of this gets back to the history of where we've been and where we are now. The plat that was submitted back in March with the 1 acre sites was reviewed by the staff and it was determined at that time that the lots were a little bit too confined. They didn't allow the flexibility orientation of access and a few other things that staff requested. And at that time Mr. Halla suggested and requested that the city's consultant, Resource Engineering give us some advice on where do we go with this plat. How can we get these mound systems in here. They prepared a report in May of '94 and based on that report, we prepared the revised plat that you see here. Their suggestions were basically to be very careful with orientation of the mound systems. To allow for proper access. To allow adequate space for water supply and wells that can't be too close to these systems. And they also pointed out particularly that soils and site evaluation needed to be done for these sites. And that would include soil borings and a look at the site by a soil evaluator. Site evaluator. As of this date, for this specific plat we have not included those particular borings and that site evaluation. And our reasoning is that we have redone this plat several times. There was a substantial expense in having an evaluator go out and determine that these sites are adequate. And we've also got some history out here. We had 70 borings approximately throughout the site in '86 and based on that information all of the borings, with minor exception, show that the site was adequate for the mound systems. And again in the fall of last year we had approximately 70 borings done based on the previous plat you saw and with minor exceptions again, those borings indicated that the site was acceptable. So based on that overall representation we felt fairly comfortable with providing this plat for the city's review subject to a final review of these sites and some potential adjustments, we expect there will be some, as a site evaluation is done. But we didn't feel it appropriate, since it's changed a number of times, to spend that money and then find, like we are finding right now, that...potential for a major redesign of the east side in particular. So we're prepared to go ahead with that and Mr. Kirchman may have some input on that. Kirchman: ...getting done right. Roger Anderson: The last issue is the drainage issue on this site. 102 acres is a big piece of ground. We've got many types of drainage going on here and many different outlets. The city's requirement refers to approximately 6 outlets. In my evaluation of the runoff, I believe I came up with about 15. Many of them flows around the perimeter...flow off by surface water flow and they will continue to do that after the plat is constructed. But also there are significant improvements on the interior of the plat including 4 additional, 3 additional ponds and an upgrade to the one pond on the east end. Many culvert and surface drainage improvements and also we've included the ponds to treat the water to NURP standards as 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 the other was that we don't want to disturb any more of those trees than we have to. We wanted to keep the grading hopefully confined to the streets and the drainage areas and restrict it pretty much to just those locations. Mancino: I have a question Mr. Anderson. The staff has requested about the tree conservation along the northwest side here. Along County Road 14. Is there any other area in the subdivision that the staff has requested you preserve trees? Or is that the only tree preservation area that staff has directed? Roger Anderson: The only other area I'm aware of is to preserve I believe it's 3 trees in the area of Pond B which is on the easterly end of the site. The storm sewer discharge. The pond as I've shown it would impact those trees and they've asked that we make an adjustment on that pond to save the trees and we'll be glad to look at that. Mancino: Okay. So out of the whole 102 acres, staff has been pretty flexible about the nursery stock but have asked that that one strip be part of the conservation? Roger Anderson: That's my understanding. Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. I have one other question about the private road. Who owns that private road? Is that property that the parties on the north own and the parties on the south? Who owns the private road that goes through there right now that is accessing the other homes to the south? Roger Anderson: I believe Mr. Halls has the best information on that. Don Halla: That is owned by several properties on the south. We actually have a private easement to use that strip of property which is 30 feet wide. It was granted to us in the purchase of our property that we have a 30 foot easement on the south side, not on our property but on another property which then has been subdivided since then and it's really been they've had to get our permission to use that since it was a project given at that time. There has been granted subject to restrictions within that easement that they have to do maintenance. It also says in that easement that if it ever goes to a public road, that they have to give up the additional 30 feet for it to be a public road. That's what the easement says. On the south side. So it's all south of our property. That was a term in our buying the property. They gave us 30 feet. If it ever went to a public road, they would get another 30 feet for it to be a public road. That's public record. Mancino: Thank you. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 is brought up the hill just north of Creekwood Drive. Our concern is that we're being asked to correct a single problem. A stretch of road that has a substantial number of problems. It is not our, it's unclear if we can have access to that to even repair that road if it's still designated as a State trunk highway. There's a resident, there's a house immediately to the east of that hill and you can see the reason the hill is there because they did not want to cause problems for that residence. If we go in or if anybody does, I believe there will be some implications there. The whole issue of whether or not we can go in and work on TH 101 I think is one that needs to be resolved. In addition on the east side of the property, the suggestion was made that the private road along the south side of that parcel be the preferred route for the road to serve Mr. Halla's property and I believe the suggestion was made based on the fact that there are a number of individual lots all served by this private road. We feel our property best lays out the way that we've shown it with some possible minor revisions and that forcing us to put the road in that location, where the private road is now, is certainly not in our best interest. Scott: Excuse me, where is that? You're talking about the private road. You're not talking about Creekwood? Mancino: Right here. I think it's on his property. Don Halla: It goes right through here. On the south side. Roger Anderson: And if I understand correctly, there are parcels south of that private road now that are served by that. It seems the best use of the property that we have to work with is to put the roads in the locations that we've shown. We feel that obviously needs more discussion and would involve a major revision to the plat obviously since the road...about 300 feet. A further issue that I'd like to discuss briefly is the trees on the property. As Mr. Halla indicated, it's been an active nursery for 32 years. There is some natural forested area on the northerly property line against the county road and the staff has suggested that that area should be generally preserved as a tree preservation area. With the exception of the fact that we feel there are some houses that should be placed in there, we can still maintain very adequate buffer between the county road of those houses. That seems to be an appropriate use there. We do have and we do show grading in there to allow the construction of I believe it's 4 houses along that bluff. They would be walkout houses encroaching no more than they had to obtain that walkout and with minimal impact on the natural vegetation in that area. The remainder of the site is predominantly remnant trees from Mr. Halla's operations and they're a wide variety of trees and sizes and some are pretty rough. Many of them are beautiful trees and it's our intention to save and protect as many of those as we can. One comment the staff made was that we didn't show any site grading on this particular site, and there are a couple of reasons. One is the soil treatment systems that need to go in. And 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 land that would be used for nursery business for umpteen years... Somewhere in the scuttlebutt too they wanted to develop it for a park. So it seemed like we were making, working with the city and handling their situations and desire for putting a park in there and at the same time obtaining the number of lots that could give me my retirement that I was hoping for. Mancino: Thank you. Roger Anderson: Chairman and Planning Commission, staff and residents. My name is Roger Anderson and I've done the design work for Don on this revised plat and the earlier one that was submitted. The staff report that we received is very comprehensive and fairly lengthy. There are quite a few issues regarding this property that needed to be addressed and as indicated by the planning staff, we have been in discussions over quite a period of time regarding all of these issues. Many of the things we talked about and the things we had to look at regarding this plat were the results of those comments and suggestions from staff and the input from Paul Krauss, who is not here right now but the plat has moved forward and I think we've made good progress in coming to a result that we feel is good for the city. As Don indicated, we think it gives us a little more land than would necessarily be required but we're here tonight to present the plat and discuss it and deal with the issues that are before us. To keep, since there are so many issues in the report, I wrote down our comments and some broad categories that I will discuss. Hopefully briefly. If anyone has any questions during the discussion of those categories, I'll be glad to answer questions. I think the history and what I'll call the planning issues have been addressed fairly thoroughly. The history goes back to when Don bought it in '62 and through the various changes in the plats that have come since that time. I believe the report does say we're at 2.83 gross acres per lot and if my math is correct, if we subtract out that outlot, we still are at almost 2.6 acres. If we take out the nursery property which is about 11 1/2 acres, we're still in excess of that 2 1/2 acre minimum. Also in the report I believe we meet the lot area, the setback requirements. There are no various. No other requirements that we saw in the report that we did not meet. The next issue that I'd like to address is the street layout. With the number of go arounds we've had on this plat, we've had an opportunity to do quite a few things with the street layout and look at several options. The plat Don showed you earlier showed the 35 lots on the westerly side of the property and it showed that area connected to the road. With this presentation we have not shown the connection on the north, from the south half. On the west side of TH 101 connected because staff has suggested that that probably would be a good idea. I believe that is something we can incorporate into the plat. There are some other street issues though that I think we are concerned about. The primary one being a suggestion that a portion of Highway 101 be reconstructed as a part of our platting process here and the development of the land. Highway 101 through that area has some substantial curves and visibility problems. There are a number of things there. And from the developer's standpoint, one particular issue 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 chemical make up of the soil, it appeared there is very good septic sites throughout the site. Anyway, this is where we're at. We're back to the 2 1/2 acres. We're back to where we were in basically 1987 with a little bit different layout. And we want to do what's fair for the community. That's what I've always said. That's why I went to talk to Paul. What would the community like? What would the city like? And he asked us to make those changes. We were asked to make a change again so now we're back at this point. And if this is what the city wants, then that's what we'll do. If it's the first 2 1/2 acres that's approved, then that's what we'll do. We're not trying to plague anybody. We're not trying to create any problems. This is my retirement. I still plan to be in the nursery business there for a period of time. I don't plan on moving out. That's why we're keeping that 11 1/2 acres in the center. We will continue to grow plants and continue in the nursery business there. That is our intention. There are many things though that are requested in this go around which make the development...cost prohibitive... From my standpoint, in farming the land for this length of time, there's a few things that would be impossible to do. Pushing water uphill. Changing and redoing Highway 101. Some of the things like that which I believe are requested by the State before. ...personally seen the reports that say... In any case, if this is the use that the community would like to see, and it is over 2 1/2 acres per lot at this point, then we're happy to go along with that...but in all sincerity, I don't think it's what any of us...Thank you. Scott: Any questions for the applicant? Is there anyone else on your development team or anyone else you would like to have speak? Don Halla: Yes, Mr. Roger Anderson. I just would like to show the layout that was done if I may, sorry. That was done for the interim one we were requested to do... This was the design that we were requested to do by Paul and basically was a clustering type design. At this point in time we had also explored with him the fact that the lots would be close enough so that you could put in the small sewer system to approve and meet EPA. Hook these people up to sewer and have the system work as kind of a community sewer system. Paul was in, he said he had seen it work and was in favor of that idea but I believe other members of the staff were not in favor of that so therefore this design was scrapped and we went on to...subdivision. This was clustering only using the west half of the property and still meeting all the criteria of lot size and so forth required by the city with the exception that what was asked for was considerably larger septic systems between this development and what we have now. Mancino: I have a question Mr. Halla. On the west side you were clustering. What was happening on the east side then? Don Halla: The east side was going to remain open. The east side was going to be open 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Edina, Minnesota. I have been in business since 1962 on the property in question. We purchased the property back in 1962 as a family landscape nursery operation and grew trees to sell them retail to the public. And we have been serving the community of Chanhassen ever since then. It is a family business. We support many of the families in the community who work for us. Some in landscaping and raising plant material. Back in 1986 we came to the city to discuss I guess the changes in the ordinance which was taking us from 2 1/2 acres for 1 lot to 10 acres. They put a period of time there for people to bring their plans and plots in order to meet this criteria and we did. We had the benefit ever since then to follow all the directions of the city and to maintain that window that we...that they left open and be accepted and subdivided their property at that point in time. Based on that subdivision that took place in 1987, I purchased all the property from my brother...nursery business. And I have been the sole owner of the property and the nursery since then. I've been working on the premise though since 1962. Back in 1972 we also moved our total operation which was located in Edina out to this site and have been operating 100% of the total business from this site. Back in 19, we were approved for 37 lots to be put on this site. We do have that on preliminary approval still standing. I guess that preliminary approval, which was shown earlier, could in fact be enacted today and we could go to that layout. But back in 1992 I was ready to do something and I came into the city staff and talked to Paul Krauss and we were working with Jo Ann Olsen and Paul requested us to change what we had approved. He said that he felt that it was very poor land use for the city. He didn't think that the two developments that had developed to the north and east of us were working well as far as the city was concerned for use of land. So at that time he said that he would like to see us change the size of the lots and do it for 1/3 of one acre size. We hired Roger Anderson and we redeveloped this property and came in with a plot that we presented to staff. To meet the criteria that the then plan person asked us to do. By going through the city staff, they decided they didn't want that. They decided they wanted the lots to be bigger for many different reasons. So now we're back to really a 2 1/2 acre plan again. I believe it...that was pre-approved or we could go with this new one. We have had communications with the city saying we want to maintain it but we can still do that originally approved 2 1/2 acre lot plan. ...good use as the one we had basically a year ago now. I don't think it's...being in the landscape business and being involved in landscape architecture and in fact I have a daughter in law who was involved with city planning and park commissions out in Baltimore who is a landscape architect...I do not feel that we're necessarily using the best use of this land but we have been farming it as a nursery business for many, many years. But we are now meeting that criteria of larger lots. The 2 1/2 acres. I personally...There's become a question about septic sites and that's why we're back to 2 1/2 acres. I don't believe there's been any failures of septic sites on this land or any other land right adjacent to us. We have irrigated this land in growing nursery stock and so on and yes, we have...certain areas. They also found in the unirrigated areas that the...model was somewhere between 4 and 7 feet. So where we haven't caused the modeling by our growing of nursery stock which changed the 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Al-Jaff: We're not aware of any private covenants. Farmakes: We talked at one time about looking at this problem and looking at ghost platting in the event that these are subdivided. So what type of development we'd actually wind up with rather than having piecemeal. Wondering if that went anywhere. Aanenson: Well that was one of the options. We looked at doing clustering septic systems with this plat and we looked at doing 15,000. Whether or not you could find acceptable drainfield sites. So some lots...as far as maintaining the density that was given to him and trying to cluster it. It seems like this would be the best way to go. Scott: Any other questions? Okay. Dave, do you have any comments? David Gatto: Yes, we have quite a few. Scott: Excuse me, Dave Hempel. Sorry. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, not really at this point. I'm open for questions. The staff report should explain our concerns. Al-Jaff: Mr. Chairman? Steve Kirchman is with us today if there are any questions on the septic systems and how they operate. He will be available to answer your questions. Scott: Okay. Steve would you, we've received some letters from, well why don't I just say, do you have any comments you'd like to make at this time about the project? Kirchman: No. Staff report pretty much says all I need to say so, if all those conditions that were requested in the staff report are met, then we're going to be okay with it. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If anybody would like to speak about this particular issue. Or excuse me, we need to hear from the applicant first. I'm sorry about that. Would the applicant like to speak? And please give your name and your address and have at it. Don Halla: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. Neighbors and members of the community. I'm Don Halla. I live at 6601 Mohawk Trail, 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 Mancino: Okay. And is that the same here? Aanenson: No. Again, we want underneath, what he was given as an extension from the city and that's what he's still pushing to...Again, the rule change. He still was given an extension of the old rules and that's what we're operating under. Mancino: So you could go in and subdivide at the time the MUSA line moves, you could subdivide this further? Aanenson: Yes. If sewer and water is available... Part of why this got delayed is we were looking at, there was the small lots and the 15,000 and we did look at that...looking at some other ways that this could be platted under small lots and clustering could be provided. That was one reason why... Mancino: So this is the only large lot subdivision that could be further divided into 15,000 square foot? Aanenson: Well all of them could if they petitioned the city and it's inside the MUSA. Outside, I mean if there were other subdivisions in the city that have larger lot and sewer and water becomes available and they request the city, can we go smaller. Could we split up our property when sewer and water becomes available, we certainly would look at it. Mancino: My only concern about this is, is you have a subdivision and it's right now 1 to 2.5 acres and you have some people obviously who want to further subdivide and some who don't and they bought into it thinking it was very rural and large lot, etc. And then you have, I mean we'll hear years and years here, you have some homeowners who want to come in and subdivide. Aanenson: You're talking about the people that lie in the Golf Estates? Mancino: Yeah. Aanenson: Well again the same issue. We did put the same condition. You know the Council...looking at a rural...and leave it that way until the entire subdivision to further subdivide. Mancino: Okay. Farmakes: Do some of these developments have private covenants that preclude subdivision. Is this particular one in front of us considering that or is that? 16