The URL can be used to link to this page

04-5-95 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1995, 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 1. Adoption of By-Laws and Elect Chair and Vice-Chair. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Preliminary plat to subdivide 1.14 acres into 2 lots on property zoned RSF, and located north of Melody Hill and north of the Minnetonka Middle School, 2220 Melody Hill Road, Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition. 3. Rezoning request to rezone 16.34 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat of 16.34 acres into 19 single family lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot wide right-of- way located south on Lake Lucy Road (1471), Pointe Lake Lucy West, Michael Byrne. 4. Site Plan Review for a two story building (Richfield Bank and Trust) with a total of 12,166 square feet on property zoned PUD and located at the southwest corner of West 78th Street and Kerber Boulevard, Lot 1, Block 3, Burdick Park Addition, Richfield State Agency, Inc. 5. Site Plan Review for a 27,750 square foot office/warehouse building on 2.68 acres located on property zoned IOP and located on Lot 4, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, Power Systems. 6. *Item Deleted. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION 7. Country Suites Hotel Update. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. *Item Deleted 6. Revised Preliminary plat of 35.83 acres of property into 52 single family lots and 2 outlots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway, Harstad Companies. BYLAWS PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CHANHASSEN The following bylaws are adopted by the City Planning Commission to facilitate the performance of its duties and the exercising of its functions as a commission established by the City Council pursuant to the provision of Subdivision 1, Section 462.354 Minnesota State Statutes annotated. SECTION 1 - DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES - PLANNING COMMISSION: 1.1 The Planning Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the City Council through carrying out reviews of planning matters. All final decisions are to be made by the City Council. 1.2 The Planning Commission shall prepare a Comprehensive Plan for the future development of the city and recommend on amendments to the plan as they arise. 1.3 The Planning Commission shall initiate, direct, and review the provisions and standards of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations and reports its recommendations to the City Council. 1.4 The Planning Commission shall review applications and proposals for zoning ordinance amendments, subdivisions, street vacations, conditional use permits and site plan reviews and make their recommendations to the City Council in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. 1.5 The Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on development proposals as prescribed by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. 1.6 - Establishment of Subcommittees The Planning Commission may, as they deem appropriate, establish special subcommittees comprised solely of their own members. SECTION 2 - MEETINGS: 2.1 - Time Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held on the first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 690 Coulter Drive, unless otherwise directed by the Chairperson, in which case at least 24 hours notice will be given to all members. Regular meetings shall have a curfew of 10:30 p.m. which may be waived at the discretion of the Chairperson. All unfinished business will be carried over to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, there shall be no Planning Commission meeting. 2.2 - Special meetings Special meetings shall be held upon call by the Chairperson, or in his/her absence, by the Vice- Chairperson or any other member with the concurrence of four other members of the commission, and with at least 48 hours of notice to all members. Notice of all special meetings shall also be posted on the official city bulletin board. 2.3 - Attendance: Planning Commission members shall attend not less than seventy-five (75%) percent of all regular and special meetings held during a given (calendar) year, and shall not be absent from three (3) consecutive meetings without prior approval of the Chairperson. Failure to meet this minimum attendance requirements shall be cause for removal from the commission by action of the City Council. SECTION 3 - COMMISSION COMPOSITION, TERMS AND VACANCIES: 3.1 - Composition The commission shall consist of seven (7) voting members. Seven members shall be appointed by the Council and may be removed by the Council. 3.2 - Terms and Vacancies The council shall appoint seven members to the commission for terms of three (3) years. Vacancies during the term shall be filled by the council for the unexpired portion of the term. Every appointed member shall, before entering upon the charge of his/her duties, take an oath that he/she will faithfully discharge the duties of his office. All members shall serve without compensation. 3.3 - Quorum Four planning commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Whenever a quorum is not present, no final or official action shall be taken at such meeting. SECTION 4 - ORGANIZATION: 4.1 - Election of Officers At the first meeting in April of each year, the planning commission shall hold an organization meeting. At this meeting, the commission shall elect from its membership a Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson. This shall be done by secret ballot. Each member shall cast its ballot for the member he 2 wishes to be chosen for Chairperson. If no one receives a majority, balloting shall continue until one member receives the majority support. Vice-Chairperson shall be elected from the remaining numbers of the same proceeding. 4.2 - Duties of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson The Chairperson or in his/her absence, the Vice-Chairperson, shall preside at meetings, appoint committees from its own membership, and perform other such duties as ordered by the commission. The Chairperson shall conduct the meeting so as to keep it moving rapidly and efficiently as possible and shall remind members, witnesses and petitioners to preserve order and decorum and to keep comments to the subject at hand. The Chairperson shall not move for action but may second motions. SECTION 5 - PROCEDURE: 5.1 - Parliamentary Procedure Parliamentary Procedure governed by Roberts Rules of Order Revised, shall be followed at all regular meetings. At special work session meetings, and when appropriate, the commission may hold group discussions not following any set parliamentary procedures except when motions are before the commission. SECTION 6 - PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6.1 - Purpose of Hearings The purpose of a hearing is to collect information and facts in order for the commission to develop a rational planning recommendation for the City Council. 6.2 - Hearing Procedure At hearings, the following procedure shall be followed in each case: a. The Chairperson shall state the case to be heard. b. The Chairperson shall call upon the staff to present the staff report. Required reports from each city department shall be submitted to the Planning Commission before each case is heard. c. The Chairperson shall ask the applicant to present his case. d. Interested persons may address the commission, giving information regarding the particular proposal. e. Petitioners and the public are to address the Chairperson only, not staff or other commissioners. 3 f. There shall be no dialogue among the commissioners giving information regarding the particular proposal. (The Planning Commission members may ask questions of persons addressing the commission in order to clarify a fact, but any statement by a member of any other purpose than to question may be ruled out of order.) g. After all new facts and information have been brought forth, the hearing shall be closed and interested persons shall not be heard again. Upon completion of the hearing on each case, the Planning Commission shall discuss the item at hand and render a decision. The Planning Commission, if it so desires, may leave the public record open for written comments for a specified period of time. h. The Chairperson shall have the responsibility to inform all the parties of their rights of appeal on any decision or recommendation of the Planning Commission. 6. 3 - Schedule At meetings where more than one hearing is scheduled, every effort shall be made to begin each case at the time set in the agenda, but in no case may an item be called for hearing prior to the advertised time listed on the agenda. SECTION 7 - MISCELLANEOUS: 7.1 - Planning Commission Discussion Matters for discussion which do not appear on the agenda may be considered and discussed by the commission only when initiated and presented by the staff and shall be placed at the end of the agenda. 7.2 - Suspension of Rules The commission may suspend any of these rules by a unanimous vote of the members present. 7.3 - Amendments Amendment of these bylaws may be made at any regular or special meeting of the Planning Commission but only if scheduled on the meeting agenda in advance of the meeting. 7.4 - Review At the first meeting in April of each year, these bylaws shall be read and adopted by the Planning Commission. Adopted: Date: 4 CITYOPC DATE: April 5, 1995 F c2`` `,i0C H A N H A S S E CC DATE: April 24, 1995 CASE #: 95-2 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 1.14 Acres into 2 single family lots, Golmen Hoff Golmen Z LOCATION: East of Hwy. 41, North of Melody Hill and Minnetonka Middle School West. VQ APPLICANT: Greg Golmen and Junie Hoff-Golmen Dave Crook 2220 Melody Hill DeMars-Gabriel Land Surveyors Excelsior , MN 55331 3030 Harbor Lane CL Plymouth, MN 55441 4 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District ACREAGE: 1.14 acres DENSITY: 1.7 Units per Acre-Gross 1.8 Units per Acre-Net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family District S - OI, Office Institutional, Minnetonka Middle School West Q E - RSF, Residential Single Family District W - RSF, Residential Single Family District WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. WF. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site generally slopes to the north. A single family house, a detached garage, and a shed occupy the site. Mature trees are (f) scattered over the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density r C_ I �� 1in. �,-�.. �J �, rte" 1.11.11:�� `J,, -,��. f 2soo • 1 14 4)1 - 15000 0 2 C) vji r Cr4 In 0. . rti gip:radii 11*.,.. *al a " � a I !pio 4.31 2700 min . dR cll.: a ; i Fs. Z - �^ 2600 S7-4 2_4... �� I / - 10 64/Gy, Or• ra A�� 2500 1 ;7, i J i . _ a� i 2400 O 1 lam ••� �� .'. 300 INWillill* ;Fvq,gO _O fel f��MI or; ---2200 2 ..:�! At, 33 L,:,,,„,,,,,. .,. ..1% , 2100 antiiia G 'i! :odd 0 iill : nem i.4 . \ . ii .0. ,,Aik. a j •M.M 1 , MI imatv,I,11;14.:: 516 e er„ 40 .„,-,„„ 4 1900 wr_ gr/tAifivav,rti i07 4-1 all _1800C r IN '� r, i NO so,„.n ,. - _, ' z � � �a�� y —170c .g.,.. - / rl - - '11111----1-----____ Abar 1 "' 33 YOSEMf � II •,Filt.,tivil : --1600 r -1),.) i, c; 1?,. . MN litirallir.. ql? %'C f l '33 11111P. • 10 1500 4 li T a i u ,c 9/Il . ---v--- .I �,� �� j ri s,.�1Mgr —1400 Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition April 5, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.14 acres into 2 single family lots. There is a home with a detached garage on the existing parcel. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The average lot size is 23,931 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.7 units per acre. The site is located in a residential single family zone and is bordered on the south by Minnetonka Middle School West. Access to the site will be provided via Melody Hill. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As mentioned earlier, there is an existing detached garage and a shed on the site. As a result of the subdivision, the garage will be located on Lot 2 and the home on Lot 1. The existing garage will be moved onto Lot 1 and the shed will be demolished. We recommend that the applicant escrow funds with the City to guarantee the removal of the structure 30 days after the final plat is recorded. If the applicant fails to remove the structure, the City would contract to have the structure removed. City Ordinance requires all single family homes to have a two car garage. The site accesses from Melody Hill which is a 30 foot wide bituminous street. According to the underlying plat of Bardwell Acres, Melody Hill was dedicated with 32 feet of right-of-way. The preliminary plat for this subdivision includes the dedicated easement for road purposes as a part of Lot 2. According to the city's records, staff could not find any documentation where this road easement was vacated. Therefore, the south 16 feet of Lot 2 should actually be shown as road right-of-way and be excluded from the lot size. In addition, setbacks will also need to be considered. The city's subdivision regulation requires a 60 foot wide street right-of-way. In the past, the city has compromised down to a 50 foot wide right-of-way for existing or established neighborhoods to continue the uniform street width. (Melody Hill lying west of this development has been dedicated with 50 feet of right-of-way. Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate the south 25 feet of Lot 2 as shown on the preliminary plat for street right-of-way to arrive at one-half the necessary street right-of-way. This dedication will not require any variances to the existing house setbacks. Staff has also received supplemental information regarding a piece of property located directly southeast of this proposed lot split (Lot 31 on Attachment #6). It appears that this property may be subdivided within the near future, thus allowing the city to require necessary street right-of-way for the extension of Melody Hill from Galpin Boulevard to Chaska Road. Currently, in order to access the school site from Melody Hill east of this development, it is necessary to go north into the City of Shorewood and back south on Chaska Road to gain access to Trunk Highway 41. The connection of Melody Hill Road is feasible from an engineering standpoint. The grades are very level and the property is fairly void of tree cover. The existing house on the property is proposed to be demolished or removed as part of the subdivision anyway. This through street connection will also provide access for the property directly to the east of this proposed lot split. The parcel (Burkeholter as shown on Attachment #6) will be able to utilize the public street for future lot Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition April 5, 1995 Page 3 subdivision. Without the through street scenario, the Burkeholter parcel will be restricted in its development potential. This is a simple lot division. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. However, minor revisions are recommended. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.14 acre site into two single-family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.8 units per acre net. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area with an average lot size of 23,931 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The existing neighborhood is predominantly single family homes with the exception of the Minnetonka Middle School West located south of the area. A single-family residence currently occupies proposed Lot 2, and a detached garage and a shed occupies proposed Lot 1. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits the building of accessory structures prior to a primary structure. In this case, the subdivision of the parcel will create a nonconforming situation. Staff discussed this with the applicant and informed them that the garage must be removed prior to final plat approval. The applicant explained that they will continue to live in their existing home while their new home is being built on Lot 1. The existing garage will be moved onto Lot 2 and the shed will be demolished. We recommend that the applicant escrow funds with the City to guarantee the removal of the structure 30 days after the final plat is recorded. If the applicant fails to remove the structure, the City would contract to have the structure removed. City Ordinance requires all single family homes to have a two car garage. The applicant is proposing to relocate the garage east of the existing house. This location will require the applicant to provide a new driveway within the existing front yard which will increase the hard surface coverage on the parcel and potentially impact a mature tree located within the front yard of the existing house. A better location for the garage is along the northwest corner of the existing house. This location will also allow the applicant to utilize the existing driveway. This location is also devoid of any trees and seems to be the ideal location for the garage. The site appears to have an existing well. The existing home is connected to City sewer and water. The well may remain in use for lawn irrigation purposes until the well fails. At that time, the well must be abandoned in accordance to Minnesota Department of Health requirements. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition April 5, 1995 Page 4 WETLANDS Based on City data and field survey, there does not appear to be any wetlands present on-site. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The city has prepared and adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) to serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10- year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The SWMP does not propose any improvements on this parcel, therefore, the applicant shall be required to pay the SWMP connection fees on the new lot for both water quality and quantity. The fees as listed as follows: Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP quality charge has been calculated at $800/acre for single-family residential developments. This proposed development of 0.7 acres for the new lot would then be responsible for a water quality connection charge of $560. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. This proposed single-family residential development of 0.7 acres would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $1,386. Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition April 5, 1995 Page 5 DRAINAGE The site drains northerly towards Eight Acres Woods Addition at an average slope of 2% percent. The site is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed district. Runoff from the site will be increased slightly with the additional home site. Staff does not believe this subdivision will adversely affect the downstream properties. GRADING This subdivision is very straight forward. Only minor grading is anticipated to maintain drainage way from the house and relocation of the garage. Proposed grading elevations will be included with the certificate of survey for the building permit. Staff reviews all building permits to ensure the grades are compatible with the surrounding parcels. EROSION CONTROL The slope on the parcel is very flat (2%). Staff feels the erosion potential is minimal and recommends type I erosion control fence be installed only on the downstream side of the proposed house pad. UTILITIES The existing home is connected to municipal sewer and water. An additional sewer and water service is also available to service the proposed lot. According to the city's assessment records, this parcel only received (paid) one sanitary sewer and water assessment. Therefore, the new parcel will be responsible for a sewer and water connection and hookup charge at the time of building permit issuance. The connection and hookup charges for 1995 have been established at $7,000 and $2,425 respectfully. The site appears to have an existing well. The existing home is connected to City sewer and water. The well may remain in use for lawn irrigation purposes until the well fails. At that time, the well must be abandoned in accordance to Minnesota Department of Health requirements. STREETS The site accesses from Melody Hill which is a 30 foot wide bituminous street. According to the underlying plat of Bardwell Acres, Melody Hill was dedicated with 32 feet of right-of-way. The preliminary plat for this subdivision includes the dedicated easement for road purposes as a part of Lot 2. According to the city's records, staff could not find any documentation where this road easement was vacated. Therefore, the south 16 feet of Lot 2 should actually be shown as road right-of-way and be excluded from the lot size. In addition, setbacks will also need to be considered. The city's subdivision regulation requires a 60 foot wide street right-of-way. In the Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition April 5, 1995 Page 6 past, the city has compromised down to a 50 foot wide right-of-way for existing or established neighborhoods to continue the uniform street width. (Melody Hill lying west of this development has been dedicated with a 50 foot wide right-of-way.) Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate the south 25 feet of Lot 2 as shown on the preliminary plat for street right-of-way to arrive at one-half the necessary street right-of-way. This dedication will not require any variances to the existing house setbacks. Staff has also received supplemental information regarding a piece of property located directly southeast of this proposed lot split (Lot 31 on Attachment #6). It appears that this property may be subdivided within the near future thus allowing the city to require dedication of the necessary street right-of-way for the extension of Melody Hill from Murray Hill to this development. Currently, in order to access the school site from Melody Hill east of this development, it is necessary to go north into the City of Shorewood and back south on Chaska Road to gain access to Trunk Highway 41. The connection of Melody Hill Road is feasible from an engineering standpoint. The grades are very level and the property is fairly void of tree cover. The existing house on the property is proposed to be demolished or removed as part of the subdivision anyway. This through street connection will also provide access for the property directly to the east of this proposed lot split (Burkeholter as shown on Attachment #6). The Burkeholter parcel will be able to utilize the public street for future lot subdivision. Without the through street scenario, the Burkeholter parcel will be restricted in its development potential. 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 31,463 175.30' 157.15' 30'/30' Neck Lot 20' Lot 2 16,399 125.30' 127.00' 30'/30' 10' Melody Hill ROW 1,949 PARK DEDICATION Full park and trail fees shall be collected per City Ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition April 5, 1995 Page 7 TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat for the subdivision. Included on the plat is the tree inventory consisting of five (5) trees. They include a 36 inch ash, a 24 inch ash, an 18 inch ash, an 8 inch ash, and an 8 inch birch. From the plans it appears that the only tree in jeopardy is the largest, the 36 inch ash. According to plans, a new driveway is to be installed between the tree in question and a power pole 17 feet away. Installation of the driveway will affect approximately 50 percent of the roots within the dripline, an area known as the critical root zone. The disturbance would have an impact on the health and growth of the tree. Since the tree is considered significant and special under ordinance, alternative options directing the driveway away from the tree should be seriously considered. The baseline canopy coverage for the five trees was calculated. It is 1,824 sq. ft., or 4 % coverage. The land use designation for the subdivision is low density residential which has a required minimum canopy coverage of 25%. Therefore, the applicant will be required to plant trees to increase the coverage by 21% or 10,051 sq. ft. A total of nine (9) trees will need to be planted, assuming that none of the five trees will be removed. If any of the existing trees are removed, the replacement number will increase. Tree protection fencing should be placed around all existing trees during construction. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95- 2 for Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition for 2 single family lots as shown on the plans received March 10, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. A total of nine (9) trees will be planted, assuming that none of the existing five trees will be removed. If any of the existing trees are removed, the replacement number will increase. Tree protection fencing should be placed around all existing trees during construction. 2. Building Department conditions: a. Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished or moved will require demolition permits. b. Building Relocation. Buildings relocated within the City require building permits prior to their being moved to the new site. Such moved buildings are Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition April 5, 1995 Page 8 required to meet all the provisions of the currently adopted building code except for energy code requirements. c. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to any grading on the property. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: a. The house to be built on Lot 1 shall have additional premise identification numbers at the driveway entrance, which shall comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Premises Identification Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. b. Any trees removed from the site will have to be hauled, chipped or cut up. No burning permits will be issued due to proximity of surrounding homes. 4. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 5. The garage shall be relocated to the northwest corner of the existing house. Access to the garage shall be from the existing driveway. The existing garage and shed shall be removed within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. Financial guarantees shall be posted with the city to ensure compliance with this condition. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies for demolition/relocation of the existing shed and garage. 6. The applicant shall provide the city with a $500 escrow prior to the city signing the final plat for review and recording of the final plat documents. 7. Lot 1, Block 1 shall be charged at the time of building permit issuance, one sanitary sewer and water connection and hookup charge. The connection and hook up charges for 1995 have been established at $7,000 and $2,425 respectfully. 8. Prior to the city signing the final plat, the applicant shall pay the city a storm water connection fee for Lot 1, Block 1. The connection fees for water quality and quantity have been established at $560 and $1,386 respectively. 9. A cross access and driveway maintenance agreement shall be executed over Lot 1, Block 1, for granting access to Lot 2, Block 1. 10. The southerly 25 feet of Lot 2, Block 1 shall be dedicated as street right-of-way with the final plat documents. Lot 2, Block 1 shall be reconfigured to arrive at the necessary square footage with a minimum of 15,000 square feet." Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition April 5, 1995 Page 9 ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated March 20, 1995. 2. Memo from Mark Littfin dated March 15, 1995. 3. Memo from Jill Kimsal dated March 16, 1995. 4. Application. 5. Public hearing notice and property owners list. 6. Map of existing topographic features (11" x 17"). 7. Preliminary plat dated received March 10, 1995. 4 CITY OF ,7 \-,,t -0 ,. ..,, CHANHASSEN , ,,,,.. _ -..-,-r.fi, i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �""T (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official A-'Q`V DATE: March 20, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-2 SUB (Golmen Addition, Golmen Hoff) I was asked to review the proposed subdivision plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAR 10 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis: Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished or moved will require demolition permits. Building Relocation. Buildings relocated within the City require building permits prior to their being moved to the new site. Such moved buildings are required to meet all the provisions of the currently adopted building code except for energy code requirements. Recommendations: 1. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. g:\safety\sak\nemos'Qlan\golmen.sj1 CITY OF *„ CHANEASSEN _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -• ' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner H FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: March 15, 1995 SUBJ: Subdivsion of 2 Lots at 2220 Melody Hill Road Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition Planning Case 95-2 SUB I have reviewed the above subdivision and have the following requirements: 1) The house to be built on Block 1 must have additional premise identification numbers at the driveway entrance, which must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Premises Identifcation Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 2) Any trees removed from the site will have to be hauled, chipped or cut up. No burning permits will be issued due to proximity of surrounding homes g:\safetysm1\952.1 CITY OF :.:.-I .-.43., .i ,,,,, „I., ,._.„.„:„.,_ ,...ro, ._,....... '_ 1 i t - e' CHANIIIISSEN ltt ::: � _� ,, 690 COULTER DRIVE •• P.O. BOX 147 •• �3, .. ,.,.-�, CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' L;, � ' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. Other Requiremen -General Ats 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background. 2. Numbers shall not be In script 3. If a structure Is not visible from the street,additionafttumbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. yrs 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement x3 must still be met 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers if deemed necessary. Residential Requirements(2 or less dwelling unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4". 2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Commercial Remlrernents J__ i. 1. Minimum height shall be 12". 2. Strip Malls a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6". b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. 3. if address numbers are located on a dlre'c ry entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. ( 1111111r Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention �-' Policy #29-1992 ,i/.. - Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Safity Director Page 1 of 1 tiji PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 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: Jill Kimsal, Forestry Intern cl'V DATE: March 16, 1995 SUBJ: Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition, Tree Preservation and Replacement The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat for the subdivision. Included on the plat is the tree inventory consisting of five (5) trees. They include a 36 inch ash, a 24 inch ash, an 18 inch ash, an 8 inch ash, and an 8 inch birch. From the plans it appears that the only tree in jeopardy is the largest, the 36 inch ash. According to plans, a new driveway is to be installed between the tree in question and a power pole 17 feet away. Installation of the driveway will affect approximately 50 percent of the roots within the dripline, an area known as the critical root zone. The disturbance would have an impact on the health and growth of the tree. Since the tree is considered significant and special under ordinance, alternative options directing the driveway away from the tree should be seriously considered. The baseline canopy coverage for the five trees was calculated. It is 1,824 sq. ft., or 4 coverage. The land use designation for the subdivision is low density residential which has a required minimum canopy coverage of 25%. Therefore, the applicant will be required to plant trees to increase the coverage by 21% or 10,051 sq. ft.. A total of nine (9) trees will need to be planted, assuming that none of the five trees will be removed. If any of the existing trees are removed, the replacement number will increase. Tree protection fencing should be placed around all existing trees during construction. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: dJa\A C,c c K OWNER: o\(k\mMeA F' jucnie, ADDRESS: De Gabe\ e \ 1--2 v\d ADDRESS: 2 ZZ V IM S l o c t-t 1 1 )" 'e-Vevl �,- s , 1r.c: . , P\y wto��V� Y`�h; ssuy t 3C� \-1eA),c Excels,cI \\A K S53.3I TELEPHONE (Day time) 55CI — o9 08 TELEPHONE: &.4 7c{ -c�S`13 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review )K Notification Signs too. 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" ,., $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP 4450 $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. ^ Subdivision 7 /]C TOTAL FEE $ (nSC• °C' A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME 2C k m en 4c,cT l`5(` n LOCATION 2226 Aft /0// LEGAL DESCRIPTION <"/ C '� 2/l�I�ze d/2-79 L z% ' /(4;. PRESENT ZONING ,e-f" REQUESTED ZONING e6 PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION ,r r'�:/l/r/'2%1 47A/ Z3-� �, � i'f REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 4- /(477/94 /y REASON FOR THIS REQUEST v u 10 k v 5 ►C This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. • asu 5] q Signature of Applicant Y 'Dat Si9 natufre of Fee Owner Date Application Received on - /f (( Fee Paid �L • t ' Receipt No‘Zf f 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. 0 o0 — .. O N N N' N N NOTICE OF PUBLIC 1!. 1t0I1-Wpm1ir' (- HEARING �� • • .�f..- miiuimltriiT . ■I.I �- �,1� PLANNING COMMISSION ' r41 MEETING Wednesday, APRIL 5, 1995ri1/4113. / r ?. I �i at 7:00 p.m. %ELD * T City Hall Council Chambers , I 01bail` 690 Coulter Drive ' 0• priciLi Project: Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition "IL NNW 1 Developer: Greg Golmen C� ' r1 r Location: 2220 Melody Hill Road I I Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to subdivide 1.14 acres into 2 lots on property zoned RSF, and located north of Melody Hill and north of the Minnetonka Middle School, 2220 Melody Hill Road, Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 23, 1995. * The Park and Recreation Commission will review this item at their meeting on Tuesday, March 28, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. J45 . 7110-r`' j';Tt Ind. School Dist. 276 Thomas & Virginia Rode Robert & Delores Aman 261 School Ave. 6275 Chaska Road 2250 Melody Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Richard & Linda Nicoll Karen Signe Peterson Robert F. Sommer 2280 Melody Hill Road 2240 Melody Hill Rd. 6239 Chaska Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Robert & Margaret Cristofond David & Christine Johns Thomas K. Gallogly 2210 Sommergate 2220 Sommergate 2230 Sommergate Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Steve & Carol Good Kenneth & Nancy Meyer David Brush & Erin Kerans 6245 Chaska Road 6251 Chaska Rd. 6257 Chaska Rd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Glenn Johnston John & Diane Lenertz Shirley Butcher & 6263 Chaska Road 6269 Chaska Rd. Rosemary Fruehling Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 2240 Sommergate Excelsior, MN 55331 Frank & Lynda Kuzma Thomas Baurle Perry C. Harrison 2241 Sommergate 2231 Sommergate 2221 Sommergate Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Claude & Kaye Benson Peter & Lisa Stauddhar Todd Rowe 2211 Sommergate 2204 Sommergate 6270 Murray Hill Rd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Wayne & Barbara Fransdal Richard & Janet Steller Harlan & Linda Leopold 6200 Murray Hill Road 6321 Steller Cir. 6490 White Dove Dr. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Lorraine Clark John & Nancy Liberg Paul & Agnes Burkholder 2161 Melody Hill Rd. 2091 Melody Hill Rd. 6370 Murray Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Mark & Lorena Flannery Gary Brunsvold Ward Allen & Sandra Putnam 2350 Melody Hill Road 6287 Chaska Road 6285 Chaska Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Hoben Corp. Phillip & Susan Bonthius 18285 Minnetonka Blvd. 2300 Melody Hill Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 4/5/95 \�\ CUA7HAECC DATE: CASE #: 95-3 SUB 95-1 REZ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, 1.11 Residential Single Family I- Z Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 14.53 Acres into 19 single family lots and three .11 outlots, Pointe Lake Lucy West A Variance to Allow a 20 Foot Front Yard Setback, a 10% street grade, and1111 a 50 Foot Wide Right-Of-Way QLOCATION: South of Lake Lucy Road and North of Lake Lucy APPLICANT: Michael J Byrne Brian & Nancy Tichy 4.11 5428 Kimberly Road 1471 Lake Lucy Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 Chanhassen, MN 55317IMAM!' PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District ACREAGE: 14.53 acres DENSITY: 1.3 Units per Acre-Gross 2.09 Units per Acre-Net 41, ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Shadow Ridge Subdivision S - Lake Lucy 1111 Q E - RR, Rural Residential District W - RR, Rural Residential District 0 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. F. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains two single family residences. The majority of the site is wooded. It contains two wetlands. The topography varies significantly throughout the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density • 0 0 D E in 0 0 o f 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 COY N N Q1 co - (p Q M Q tNJ . lc . . : . . . I I .. lin air- - iiiwzi imilm.71 7 mfAilltli lip, ri,, ,,,1_9>_____.. , • VA,,,,Elr 1.11 -111. • ~' _ . �� --- r �'-" <k). /SII ■ , kut iltrAPOStaillr - N2v, �, "Mill III, �� , �� `��'�:�•��, �� ■■_mur� .oma Ii �t ��,�,,.sai ►� ,1g 1.61444v41! est u�► -il , n -% fie 1 � . < ilk 14 ......' -',011111 g tallirt- 01 inlu ilorepitig :•♦4ii� Ai PAR • � I�� ii PHEASAN .a,, �. r. �� ► . f PARK • �- 1 $ I\; � csll�:r � „; )- Cy LANE �- ■.>t.1t•� q��►�� C-4') !� I reDef:—V117•17 ) - mihro a)Pt 1IWCH $ i1t- RR G� I . - i 4,N.... 1 Ifitill: El • _ien. )57-f--- ,, ..._., _ v., 7\ sog• bd ., f) 40140 CAKE N RR/S N 1111 I ' tb 011111111 . ••�� i o \, LAKE LAKE LUCY Bl�� RD Eakkolkfr M__ MP ii3• 1. litima UI I a t; ---` Midi A. 1 GREENWO i i SHORES mARK 7 •l MEADOW (------ olX-j:' LKE ANN GREEN PAP I RSF �■� ,- � . rte R D { z Ire 4jii - __?--- __-__ ___.------- n . LAK R4 ANN ----, J PARK • FOR ,ANY .t - .� L %0 THEREIN DLri , D ��V 1 - \- N___ mom, t�o,A4e. Lf Luc AN . 333""'-.-.n....._..._ • L7,-34-.., `....'-2155 iss'----,b,.,b,. .- - - -----.---,.--,----;•-•-,---,," - 1k :,• • - :__ . -� -fir 4 '2: a ...;)%.." Ii. I :VA-p-4, -7-k_ 1)//jA, - i' I--. ". : ,.•••-,,,...._--__ ...--:;.„..- .....-„," .. -....17.:.-_-_-_-_7--,-.=.- -2,-.: ....; rit le • j li �-rd, e\ 6\1 I _ .� 4.'' �\��_` ` - i.. ti , . g .r.:f _ - , :-......:: --..7 ......,, 1 i1r.• ;:( j g'% ' :a ars A /41.• .1 LE J. t �' J `° r q I 2i.17 Y • 1 .� o., �.f ,Iiii1 COEYK - moo ,,,J ! \ \I\L.:\ • te 1, • M-g- ( v:"•.-. • . ,o't , ' — "2 \I's" , - fai •:-' Nt74L•41/4.\'' ' - ..-'. \‘ \ --.: 2. . ...1..1)14ii,• '. . ' r - I I �� \ ..... . -'� ) �vie--7•-,.... .__ ' ''1 1 �r \. � • ..,.\ ` -fi• �' ,,.....3- , - 0 -- a -.0.-,;\ V 7 / �ice o1 I N \_� Sp - r _� \ \ �} t N �5irop - = ii0 ' 1 • !V / � � , y iY I , j . . _:' ,. .... .-1,... - -1311 lat.• i 1 : LCirjg -\ ' '.-- 0 \A l'"S2- 0. - •...:, .... Plis e::4 044E1E4 ir If 4 I- I • bi, _ • `' /// 375 ,,' �� ni % 12 - _ � I \. ,/ v - 1SOUTH \ =\ �� •-. w �D.IrL I •• 744E `OJNOATION�' I ' \ ,2S• P 203 I \ 375 • x.'5000 �-- ; •212 29 ...% Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 14.53 acres into 19 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 27,831 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.3 units per acre. The site is located south of Lake Lucy Road and North of Lake Lucy. Access to the subdivision will be provided via a public street/cul-de-sac, south of Lake Lucy Road, to service all of the proposed lots, as well as internal private streets. The majority of the site has a dense concentration of mature trees. According to the proposed plans, a large number of these trees will be lost due to grading of the site and will exceed the allowable tree canopy coverage removal permitted by ordinance. The applicant will have to provide a replacement plan consistent with city ordinances. In reviewing this plat, staff worked with the applicant and offered some suggestions to minimize the impact on the natural features of the site. One of these options suggested clustering the units in one area and leaving the rest of the site undisturbed as part of a Planned Unit Development. This option was rejected by the applicant. Staff has also recommended alterations to the plan that would incorporate variances for street grades, street widths, and building setbacks to minimized impact on the site. Staff was also willing to consider the use of private driveways for up to 5 homes provided the applicant demonstrates they will be preserving the site. The applicant has used these suggestions to create additional lots rather than enhance environment protection. If the applicant utilized a public street built to city urban standards along the most southerly portion of the site, to serve Lots 8, 9, and 10, these lots would become unbuildable. The same is true for Lot 19. Staff is not comfortable compromising ordinance standards unless the applicant can demonstrate that this will, in fact, reduce grading and not simply increase the number of lots. Many revisions are necessary to improve this subdivision. The applicant must demonstrate that by granting these variances, grading is significantly reduced, tree loss is minimized, and site characteristics are preserved. If the applicant cannot enhance environmental protection, there would be no justification for granting these variances, and therefore it should be denied. The applicant submitted a tree inventory survey and canopy coverage calculations for the development. The inventory failed to list all trees 12 inches in diameter and larger. Upon inspection of the site, staff found many trees that failed to be shown on the inventory. Therefore, the submitted inventory does not represent the true image of the woodlands on site. Before approval of the development is granted, a revised tree inventory denoting all trees 12 inches and larger on site must be submitted. Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 3 The subdivision ordinance Sec. 18-40 (1) a. requires proposed names of subdivisions not to duplicate or be similar in pronunciation or spelling to the name of any other plat in the county. The applicant is proposing to name this subdivision Pointe Lake Lucy West. A subdivision located 180 feet east of the subject site, which received preliminary plat approval on March 13, 1995, carries the name Point Lake Lucy. The name of this plat "Pointe Lake Lucy West" must be changed as it duplicates the name "Point Lake Lucy." Staff is concerned that this application is not as environmentally sensitive as could be. We are recommending tabling action on this application, however, we felt that it would be beneficial for the applicant to get the Planning Commission and the neighboring property owners' comments to include in the revisions. REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family. The area to the north is zoned Residential Single Family to the east and west is zoned Rural Residential and is guided for Residential Low Density. 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 1.3 units per acre and 2.01 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 an 14.53 acre site into 19 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.3 units per acre gross, and 2.09 units per acre net after removing the roads (2.28 acres) and wetlands (3.16 acres). All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 27,831 square feet. Only through the granting of variances and the approval of private streets would all lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As mentioned in the proposal summary, staff does not support compromising ordinance standards unless the applicant can demonstrate that these variances will in fact reduce grading and not simply increase the number of lots. The four lots located to the south of the cul-de-sac are proposed to be served via a private driveway, as well as homes proposed on Lots 12, 13, and 14. The property located to the east of the subject property can only gain access to a public right-of-way from the subject property. The adjacent property has the potential to subdivide into three lots. Two of those lots will need Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 4 to utilize the same driveway as proposed Lots 12, 13, and 14. The ordinance allows a maximum of 4 homes to be served via a private drive. The city has never granted a variance to allow 5 homes on a single driveway in a new subdivision. This will create a precedent. However, the topography of this site is unique and we do not anticipate the request on other properties. The granting of this variance should only be permitted if the applicant can demonstrate that natural features are being preserved. The other option is to require the applicant to provide a public street. This will eliminate the variance and reduce the number of lots on the site. However, the amount of additional grading and tree loss will remain an issue. In the case of either a private drive or public street, staff would also recommend that the applicant be permitted to utilize reduced front yard setbacks on lots that are heavily wooded and adjacent to wetlands. This will minimize grading and allow for a larger building pad. Again, variances should only be granted if the applicant can demonstrate that environmental features are being preserved. Although the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, we believe that revisions will have to be made to preserve more of the natural features of the site. WETLANDS There are 2 wetlands delineated on-site and they are as follows: Wetland A is located on the property just east of Lots 11 through 13 along the southeastern portion of the property. The wetland is approximately 5.3 acres and is characterized as an inland shallow fresh water marsh. Approximately 1.7 acres of the wetland is located on the property. The City's wetland inventory states that this wetland is a natural wetland, and therefore, the buffer strip required shall be 10 to 30 feet wide with an average width of 20 feet. This wetland will not be filled or excavated as a result of the development. Wetland B is the natural wetland complex that borders the Lake Lucy shoreline. The wetland is above the ordinary high water elevation for Lake Lucy, and therefore, is not within DNR jurisdiction. Approximately 1.46 acres of the wetland is located on the property. Since this is a natural wetland, the buffer strip required shall be 10 to 30 feet wide with an average width of 20 feet. This wetland will not be filled or excavated as a result of the development. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies,from a regional perspective, the storm Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 5 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 in each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The City has had discussions with the applicant's engineer on the water quality ponding. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of$800/acre for single-family residential developments will be waived because the applicant will be required to provide a storm water quality treatment pond on site in accordance to the City's SWMP standards. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 14.53 acres; however, 3.16 acres is wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for 11.37 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of $22,513. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING & DRAINAGE The plan proposes to grade the majority of the site which will result in significant tree loss. The site consists of wooded areas, wetlands and steep slopes over the northerly half. The site drains generally from north to south. The runoff eventually discharges into Lake Lucy along the southerly boundary of the site. The topographic features are somewhat similar to the previous subdivision just east of this site (Coey parcel - Point Lake Lucy), however, that parcel had a Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 6 common ridge that bisected the center of the development which made it easier to develop. This parcel has significant side slopes which divide the parcel. Staff has met on several occasions with the applicant regarding this development in an attempt to minimize the grading and tree loss and impacts to the wetlands. It is staff's understanding that these plans will be modified incorporating some of the recommendations discussed during those meetings. Some of the changes discussed were custom grading most of the wooded lots, increasing the street grades up to 10 percent to conform with existing ground contours which results in less grading, adjusting building pad elevations and/or changing the dwelling type to conform with the existing grade, modifying the street and cul-de-sac alignment to accommodate a water quality pond (Walker basin) for pretreatment of stormwater prior to discharging to the wetland, adjusting lot lines slightly in cases where significant trees can be saved, such as on Lot 12. Staff has also suggested clustering homes on the northerly portion of the site in an attempt to retain the natural feature over the southerly portions. However, the applicant was not interested. Staff has also reconsidered this option after walking the site and found that the southern portion of the site is pretty well void of significant trees except adjacent to the wetlands and over the southeastern corner of the site, Trees adjacent to the wetland have the greatest potential for being preserved. The plans have incorporated a 50-foot wide right-of-way which is less than the City's standard right-of-way in an attempt to preserve trees and lessen the grading. Staff does not support compromising the right-of-way width unless the applicant can demonstrate that the reduced right- of-way will in fact reduce grading and not simply increase the number of lots. This will be further evaluated when the revised plans are submitted. The plans currently do not provide for an on-site stormwater pond to pretreat stormwater runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The wetland just east of the cul-de-sac is classified as a natural wetland. The applicant will need to provide an on-site stormwater pretreatment pond prior to discharging into the wetlands. The stormwater pretreatment pond shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements listed in the SWMP section. Stormwater pipe calculations for a 10-year storm event will have to be provided to the City for review and approval. Typically, with the soil conditions on hilly terrains, groundwater may be of concern. The City has been requiring a draintile system be constructed behind the curb and gutter for homes which are not adjacent to a wetland/pond. The draintile system provides an acceptable means of controlling sump pump discharge from the homes. The plans propose filling the southerly portion of the site. Only three lots in that area have minimal tree cover. The site will be filled with up to eight feet of material to create walkout building pads. The filling is necessary to accommodate sanitary sewer service to these lots. Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 7 Plans have also incorporated the use of retaining walls to help minimize the amount of grading. By increasing the street grade, the amount and height of these walls could be reduced significantly. Staff also recommends that the applicant increase street grades up to 10 percent, which is not uncommon in hilly terrains such as this, in an effort to minimize grading and tree loss. In summary, staff believes that the plans should be revised incorporating the recommendations contained in the staff report prior to being considered for formal approval. EROSION CONTROL Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion control fence which is a heavy duty silt fence be used around the wetlands for added protection. A revised grading and erosion control plan should be developed in accordance with the City's BMPH and submitted to the City for review and approval. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended from the Coey parcel which was recently subdivided into Point Lake Lucy. The Coey parcel is located approximately 200 feet east of this site. The sewer line to date has not been extended to service this parcel from the Coey parcel. Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended this spring through the Coey parcel and deadend at the property line just east of this development (Morin's). The exact alignment of this sewer line will be staked in the field prior to construction to minimize tree loss and impact to the wetlands and Morin's property. The applicant has been working with the Morin's to acquire the necessary utility easement for this extension. In order for this project to proceed, the sanitary sewer will need to be extended through the Coey and Morin properties. Without the sewer, this project would be considered premature for development. A condition has been added in the staff report that final plat approval will be contingent upon sanitary sewer being extended through the Coey and Morin properties. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs associated with this extension. Municipal water service is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The plans propose extending water service throughout the development. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's 1995 edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will be subject to City Council approval. The applicant will be required as a part of final plat and construction plan approval to enter into a development contract and provide the City with financial securities to guarantee conditions of approval and installation of the public improvements. Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 8 The development contains two existing home sites (Tichy and Christensen). Both of these home sites are currently on their own well and septic system. The existing home on the westerly portion of the site (Lot 18 - Christensen's) is proposed to be removed. The other home (Tichy) is proposed to remain on Lot 15. Both on-site well and septic systems will have to be abandoned in accordance with the City and State health codes in conjunction with this development. The well and septic on Lot 18 will have to be abandoned in conjunction with site grading. The well and septic system on the Tichy property (Lot 15) may be delayed since the construction activities appear not to impact the systems. However, city ordinance requires that properties within 150 feet of a municipal sewer system must be connected to the city's system within 12 months after the system becomes operational. Connection to city water is not required until the well fails. The sanitary sewer to serve this development will be designed and constructed to service the Morin's property as well as the properties to the west and north of the site. Sanitary sewer lines from the Coey property will be very shallow to service Lots 6 through 10. The lots may have to be elevated another foot or two or the lower level of the homes will require ejector systems to pump effluents from the lower level. STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. This road is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Street right-of-way on the public street within the development has been reduced from the 60-foot requirement to 50 feet wide in an attempt to reduce grading and tree loss. Staff will be evaluating this compromise with the revised plans to determine whether or not the reduced right-of-way is warranted. The plans are also incorporating the use of private streets to service portions of the development and adjacent parcels. City ordinance provides up to four homes to be serviced off a private street. A turnaround acceptable to the City's fire marshal will also have to be provided. The private street will reduce impacts to the wetland and tree loss versus the public street. Staff believes the use of private streets to service Lots 7 through 9 may be warranted, however, lot 10 should be eliminated or lot lines should be adjusted to pull the buildable area out of the wooded area. The use of a public street would prohibit developing this area (Lots 7 through 10) due to setback requirements from wetlands and the street. Another private street is proposed to service five lots (12 through 14) and the Morin's parcel to the east. The Morins and staff have reviewed the development potential of the Morin's parcel and it appears that the site may be further subdivided into three lots, two of which access via the proposed private street. Therefore, the private street as proposed would be serving up to five homes which is one more than the ordinance permits. The applicant will need to revise the plans to limit access to the private street to four homes and realign the private street and lots to minimize tree removal. A variance to the number of lots accessing on the private street should only be permitted if the applicant can demonstrate environmental features are being preserved. The applicant could consider constructing a public street to reduce the number of homes accessing the private street to four. In addition, a Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 9 turnaround which meets the City's fire marshal's requirements will also have to be considered. Future access was considered for the parcel west of the development (Willis) which is currently for sale. The Willis parcel currently gains access from Lake Lucy Road via a long gravel driveway. Part of the driveway is actually located within the proposed subdivision and is shown through Outlot A which is assumed to be sold or transferred to Willis in the future. The Willis driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road is across from Yosemite. This intersection has a substandard sight distance which makes it difficult to safely turn to and from the property. Eventually, when the Willis parcel subdivides, staff will recommend that the driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road be eliminated and the driveway be relocated to access through Lot 2 of this proposed development. It appears the Willis property has ability to further subdivide into four lots. The applicant should provide a 30-foot wide driveway easement or a 50-foot wide public right-of-way to provide future access to the site. The Tichy home on Lot 15 currently gains access from Lake Lucy Road as well. Lake Lucy Road as discussed is classified as a collector street on the City's Comprehensive Plan. Driveway access directly onto a collector street is prohibited unless no other feasible alternatives are available. Under the current plan proposal, it appears due to severe grade difference, the Tichy's driveway would not be able to relocate to the proposed street. When the applicant considers revisions to their plans, this issue should be taken into consideration to see if a driveway could be extended to Tichy's as well. Private driveway maintenance and access agreements will need to be incorporated into covenants to permit access to the lots adjacent to private driveways as well as the Morin and Willis parcels. DOCKING ISSUES ON LAKE LUCY The issue of lake access has been considered and the following options are available for residents. 1. No more than one dock shall be permitted on any lakeshore site. No dock shall exceed six feet in width and no dock shall exceed the greater of the following lengths; 50 feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of 4 feet. 2. Intensive removal or alteration of vegetation is not allowed. Furthermore, impacts to wetlands, if any, would have to be mitigated if the altered area is over 400 square feet. 3. Land owners can share a dock by placing the dock on the property line. 4. A beachlot can be created if the developer dedicates the land for it. Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 10 5. Any dock will have to receive City and DNR approval. PARK DEDICATION The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on March 28, 1995 and recommended full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. They also recommended that the existing house located on Lot 15 be exempt from these fees. If the home is demolished and a new residence was built, the site would then be subject to these fees. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Staff has not prepared a compliance table at this time since all the lot lines will shift resulting in lot area changes. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The applicant submitted a tree inventory survey and canopy coverage calculations for the development. The inventory failed to list all trees 12 inches in diameter and larger. Upon inspection of the site, staff found many trees not shown on the inventory. Therefore, the submitted inventory does not present the true image of the woodlands on site. Before approval of the development is granted, a revised tree inventory denoting all trees 12 inches and larger on site must be submitted. The site is heavily wooded with a wide range of species and ages. Large, mature oaks exist throughout the site as well as thick stands of young ironwoods, aspens, ash, elms, and cottonwoods. There is a range of ages in all species on site implying that the woodlands are fertile and productive. One interesting find on the tree survey by the applicant is the existence of a 24" Black Oak. While this tree is the most common upland oak in the eastern United States, its presence in Chanhassen is unique since the range of this species only extends to the three most southeastern counties in Minnesota. The tree is nearly identical in appearance to red and pin oaks, common to this area, but differs from them in the shape of the acorn. On inspection of the site, no acorns could be found to support or refute the claim. In the absence of the City's verification, however, the benefit of the doubt should be granted and measures taken to plan the preservation of such a rare and unique tree. Development in the southern portion as specified in plans would not be an option. Alternatives must be considered that would completely avoid the Black Oak (development would not be allowed within a distance of 11/ times the dripline from the tree). Close attention and custom grading may save trees. Staff calculated site canopy coverage at 73 percent, or 8.35 acres. The developer is required to maintain 46 percent, 5.28 acres, canopy coverage after development. Canopy removal due to development was calculated to be 5.89 acres, leaving only 2.46 acres. Replacement requirements Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 11 would be 1.2 times 2.82 acres for a total replacement of 3.38 acres, or 135 trees. Applicant's calculations of canopy coverage and removal differed significantly, therefore, the applicant will need to verify calculations. Alignment of the city sewer lines is recommended along the northern edge of the wetland on the east side of the development. This route can be aligned so as to avoid a number of large trees and to take advantage of an existing cleared path. The site will be irrevocably changed by development. Because of extensive grading few, if any, trees will be saved within the grading limits. Only those on the extreme edges will be left relatively unaffected. The applicant has proposed boulder walls to preserve some of the larger trees on site. The applicant will need to show elevations of all trees that are planned to be preserved. Trees with grade changes of more than 4 feet inside 50% or more of their dripline will not be counted toward preservation. So little of the original grades and environment will be retained that the future health of the remaining trees within grading limits must by carefully planned. 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 include 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 plantings 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. A replacement plan will attempt to replace all those trees being lost in excess of the minimum requirements 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 woodland management plan. FINDINGS SUBDIVISION 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision requires variances to meet the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 12 Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan density designation, however, the plan needs to be revised to provide a water quality pond on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. 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 has a significant tree coverage and rolling topography. The applicant will be changing the site characteristics in order to develop it. The plans can be revised to make the subdivision more suitable for this 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 will be served by a public street and infrastructures. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will need to be revised as discussed in the staff report and in the conditions of approval. Grading and tree removal must be minimized. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will be provided with adequate public infrastructure with the extension of the sanitary sewer from the east. Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 13 VARIANCE As part of this plat approval, a variance to allow 20 foot front yard setbacks, a 10 percent street grade, five homes accessing via a private drive, and a 50 foot wide right-of-way is requested. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision chapter as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land. 3. The condition of conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: As mentioned earlier in the report, staff does not support compromising ordinance standards unless the applicant can demonstrate that these variances will in fact reduce grading and not simply give an opportunity to increase the number of lots. Many revisions need to take place to improve this subdivision. The applicant must demonstrate that by granting these variances, the result would minimize grading significantly, minimize tree loss, and preserve the site character. PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS As part of this subdivision, the applicant is requesting the use of private driveways to service portions of the site. The subdivision ordinance allows up to four lots to be served by a private driveway if the city fmds the following conditions 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 existence of wetlands. 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. 3. The use of a private driveway will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees. Finding: The applicant is utilizing private streets along the southerly portion of the site to create additional lots, thereby causing the removal of additional trees. If the Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 14 applicant utilized a street built up to city standards, at least three of those lots would become unbuildable. Tree loss and significant grading is still taking place with the private street. The applicant must demonstrate that by allowing him to use these private driveways, the result would minimize grading significantly, minimize tree loss, and preserve the site character. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission table action on the following: Rezoning of 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, Case 95-1 REZ Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 14.53 Acres into 19 single family lots and three outlots, with variances (A Variance to Allow a 20 Foot Front Yard Setback, a 10% street grade, and a 50 Foot Wide Right-Of-Way), Point Lake Lucy West, Case 95-3 SUB The following issues,comments,concerns,and recommendations must be addressed and resolved prior to preliminary plat approval: 1. 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. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 5. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater 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 Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 15 calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. 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. 6. 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. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 8. 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 shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 9. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way of Lake Lucy. 10. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 11. A water quality pond shall be provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. 12. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing home (Tichy) on Lot 15 shall be connected to the city sewer system within 12 months after the system becomes operational. Connection to city water is not required unless the well on Lot 15 fails. 13. The proposed single-family residential development of 11.37 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $22,513. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 16 14. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The construction plans shall include a draintile system behind the curbs and gutters on those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond. 15. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road. 16. Lots 1 through 3, 11 through 14, and 16 through 19, Block 1 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the city engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the lot. 17. The plat and construction plans shall be revised incorporating the recommendation contained in this staff report to minimize grading and tree loss. 18. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Morins. 19. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No. 209 and a turnaround acceptable to the City's fire marshal. A private maintenance agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private street(s). 20. Street grades may be increase up to 10% and the City's right-of-way reduced to 50-foot wide if staff determines these measures will reduce grading and tree loss. 21. The applicant shall provide future street and utility access to the Willis property directly west of this development. 22. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned. 22. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road Right-of-Way. 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. The applicant shall also provide a woodland management plan. Elevation of all trees to be saved within grading limits must be shown on the grading plan. Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 17 23. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading. 24. 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. d. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. The proposed street name, Pointe Rd. is similar to Point Dr. in Waconia. The proposed street name should be changed to avoid confusion to law enforcement and emergency response agencies used by both Cities. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. e. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 25. Fire Marshal conditions: a) Relocate fire hydrant from between Lots 1 & 2 to the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Pointe Road. Add one (1) fire hydrant between Lots 17 and 18. b) 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 safety operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. c) Due to the close proximity of surrounding homes, any trees, shrubs, bushes, natural vegetation, will either have to be chipped, shredded or removed from the site. No burning permits will be issued. Pointe Lake Lucy West April 5, 1995 Page 18 d) Additional premise identification signage will be required for Lots 8 - 9 - 10 per Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. e) Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The turnaround may be modified if homes on lots 9, 10, 13 and 14 are protected by a NFPA 13 D fire sprinkler system. f) Submit a street name for Outlot B to Fire Marshal for approval. 26. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 27. The name of this plat "Pointe Lake Lucy West" must be changed as it duplicates the name "Point Lake Lucy." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated March 27, 1995. 2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated March 20, 1995, and 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo 3. Memo from Mark Littfin dated March 20, 1995. 4. Memo from Jill Kimsal dated March 23, 1995. 5. Letter from Lake Lucy Environment President Committee dated March 27, 1995. 5. Preliminary plat dated March 6, 1995. CITY OF .. AO- 1,-:.•0'''''----. Nio,f,. ,,,,,,3.-ifr-4,,..--.;;yr CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 553= '` (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 4 DATE: March 27, 1995 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat Documents - Pointe Lake Lucy West, Michael Byrne - 95-3 SUB/95-1 REZ/LUR File No. 95-12 Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings dated July 12, 1994, revised March 6, 1995 prepared by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., and the wetland delineation report dated March 22, 1995 prepared by Peterson Environmental, Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS There are 2 wetlands delineated on-site and they are as follows: Wetland A is located on the property just east of Lots 11 through 13 along the southeastern portion of the property. The wetland is approximately 5.3 acres and is characterized as an inland shallow fresh marsh. Approximately 1.7 acres of the wetland is located on the property. The City's wetland inventory states that this wetland is a natural wetland, and therefore, the buffer strip required shall be 10 to 30 feet wide with an average width of 20 feet. This wetland will not be filled or excavated as a result of the development. Wetland B is the natural wetland complex that borders the Lake Lucy shoreline. The wetland is above the ordinary high water elevation for Lake Lucy, and therefore, is not within DNR jurisdiction. Approximately 1.4 acres of the wetland is located on the property. Since this is a natural wetland, the buffer strip required shall be 10 to 30 feet wide with an average width of 20 feet. This wetland will not be filled or excavated as a result of the development. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and Sharmin Al-Jaff March 27, 1995 Page 2 minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The City has had discussions with the applicant's engineer on the water quality ponding. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of $800/acre for single-family residential developments may be waived if the applicant provides water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 16.34 acres; however, 4.86 acres is wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for 11.48 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of $22,730. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING & DRAINAGE The plan proposes to grade the majority of the site which will result in tree loss. The site consists of wooded areas, wetlands and steep slopes over the northerly half. The site drains generally from north to south. The runoff eventually discharges into Lake Lucy along the southerly boundary of the site. The topographic features are somewhat similar to the previous subdivision just west of this site (Coey parcel - Point Lake Lucy), however, that parcel had a common ridge that bisected the center of the development which made it easier to develop. This parcel has significant side slopes which divides the parcel. Staff has met on several occasions with the applicant regarding this development in an attempt to minimize the grading and tree loss and impacts to the wetlands. It is staffs understanding that these plans will be modified incorporating some of the recommendations discussed during those meetings. Some of the changes discussed were custom grading most of the wooded lots, Sharmin Al-Jaff March 27, 1995 Page 3 increasing the street grades up to 10% to conform with existing ground contours which results in less grading, adjusting building pad elevations and/or changing the dwelling type to conform with the existing ground, modifying the street and cul-de-sac alignment to accommodate a water quality pond (Walker basin) for pretreatment of stormwater prior to discharging to the wetland, adjusting lot lines slightly in cases where significant trees can be saved such as on Lot 12. Staff has also suggested clustering homes on the northerly portion of the site in an attempt to retain the natural feature over the southerly portions. However, the applicant was not interested in sacrificing the higher quality or more expensive lots adjacent to Lake Lucy which was expected. Staff has also reconsidered this option after walking the site and found that the southern portion of the site is pretty well void of significant trees except adjacent to the wetlands which are being saved for the most part anyway. Therefore, staff has not pursued this clustering idea any further. The plans have incorporated a 50-foot wide right-of-way which is less than the City's standard right-of-way in an attempt to preserve trees and lessen the grading. Staff is not sold on the idea of compromising the right-of-way width unless the applicant can demonstrate that the reduced right-of-way will in fact reduce grading and not simply give an opportunity to increase the number of lots. This will be further evaluated when the revised plans are submitted. The plans currently do not provide for an on-site stormwater pond to pretreat stormwater runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The wetland just east of the cul-de-sac is classified as a natural wetland. The applicant will need to provide an on-site stormwater pretreatment pond prior to discharging into the wetlands. The stormwater pretreatment pond shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements listed in the SWMP section. Stormwater pipe calculations for a 10-year storm event will have to be provided to the City for review and approval. Typically, with the soil conditions on hilly terrains, ground water maybe of concern. The City has been requiring a draintile system be constructed behind the curb and gutter for homes which are not adjacent to a wetland/pond. The draintile system provides an acceptable means of controlling sump pump discharge from the homes. The plans propose on filling the southerly portion of the site which is pretty well void of trees. The site will be filled with up to eight feet of material to create walkout building pads. In addition, the filling is necessary to accommodate sanitary sewer service to these lots. Plans have also incorporated the use of retaining walls to help minimize the amount of grading. By increasing the street grade, the amount and height of these walls could be reduced significantly. Staff also recommends that the applicant increase street grades up to 10% which is not uncommon in hilly terrains such as this in an effort to minimize grading and tree loss. In summary, believes that the plans should be revised incorporating the recommendations contained in the staff report prior to being considered for formal approval. Sharmin Al-Jaff March 27, 1995 Page 4 EROSION CONTROL Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion control fence which is a heavy duty silt fence be used around the wetlands for added protection. A revised grading plan should be developed in accordance with the City's BMPH and submitted to the City for review and approval. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended from the Coey parcel which was recently subdivided into Point Lake Lucy. The Coey parcel is located approximately 200 feet east of this site. The sewer line to date has not been extended to service this parcel from the Coey parcel. Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended this spring through the Coey parcel and deadend at that the property just east of this development (Morin's). The exact alignment of this sewer line will be staked in the field prior to construction to minimize tree loss and impact to the wetlands and Morin's property. The applicant has been working with the Morin's to acquire the necessary utility easement for this extension. In order for this project to proceed, the sanitary sewer will need to be extended through the Coey and Morin properties. Without the sewer, this project would be considered premature for development. A condition has been added in the staff report that final plat approval will be contingent upon sanitary sewer being extended through the Coey and Morin properties. Municipal water service is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The plans propose on extending water service throughout the development. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's 1995 edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will be subject to City Council approval. The applicant will be required as a part of final plat and construction plan approval to enter into a development contract and provide the City with financial securities to guarantee conditions of approval and installation of the public improvements. The development contains two existing homesites (Tichy and Christensen). Both of these homesites are currently on their own well and septic system. The existing home on the westerly portion of the site (Lot 18 - Christensen's) is proposed to be removed. The other home (Tichy) is proposed to remain on Lot 15. Both on-site well and septic systems will have to be abandoned in accordance with the City and State health codes in conjunction with this development. The well and septic on Lot 18 will have to be abandoned in conjunction with site grading. The well and septic system on the Tichy property (Lot 15) may be delayed since the construction activities appear not to impact the systems. However, city ordinance requires properties within 150 feet of a municipal sewer system must be connected to the city's system within 12 months after the system becomes operational. Connection to city water is not required until the well fails. Sharmin Al-Jaff March 27, 1995 Page 5 The sanitary sewer to serve this development will be designed and constructed to service the Morin's property as well as the properties to the west and north of the site. Sanitary sewer lines from the Coey property will be very shallow to service Lots 6 through 10. The lots may have to be elevated another foot or two or the lower level of the homes will require ejector systems to pump effluents from the lower level. STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. This road is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Street right-of-way on the public street has been reduced from the 60-foot requirement to 50 feet wide in an attempt to reduce grading and tree loss. Staff will be evaluating this compromise with the revised plans whether or not the reduced right-of-way is warranted. The plans are also incorporating the use of private streets to service portions of the development and adjacent parcels. City ordinance provides up to four homes to be serviced off a private street. A turnaround acceptable to the City's fire marshal will also have to be provided. The private street will reduce impacts to the wetland and tree loss versus the public street. Staff believes the use of private streets to service Lots 7 through 10 may be warranted. The use of a public street would prohibit developing this area (Lots 7 through 10) due to setback requirements from wetlands and the street. Another private street is proposed to service four lots (12 through 14) and the Morin's parcel to the east. The Morins and staff have reviewed the development potential of the Morin's parcel and it appears that the site may be further subdivided into two lots. Therefore the private street as proposed would be serving up to five homes which is one more than the ordinance permits. The applicant will need to revise the plans to limit access to the private street up to four homes or consider constructing a public street over a portion of the street to reduce the number of homes accessing the private street to four. In addition, a turnaround which meets the City's fire marshal's requirements will also have to be considered. Future access was also considered for the parcel west of the development (Willis) which is currently for sale. The Willis parcel currently gains access from Lake Lucy Road via a long gravel driveway. Part of the driveway is actually located within the proposed subdivision and is shown through Outlot A which is assumed to be sold or transferred to Willis in the future. The Willis driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road is across from Yosemite. This intersection has substandard sight distance which makes it difficult to safely turn to and from the property. Eventually, when the Willis parcel further subdivides, staff will recommend that the driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road be eliminated and the driveway be relocated to access through Lot 2 of this proposed development. It appears the Willis property has ability to further subdivide into four lots. The applicant should provide a 30-foot wide driveway easement or a 50-foot wide public right-of-way to provide future access to the site. The Tichy home on Lot 15 currently gains access from Lake Lucy Road as well. Lake Lucy Road as discussed is classified as a collector street on the City's Comprehensive Plan. Driveway access directly on to a collector street is prohibits unless no other feasible alternatives are available. Under the current plan proposal, it appears due to severe grade difference, the Tichy's Sharmin Al-Jaff March 27, 1995 Page 6 driveway would not be able to relocated to the proposed street. When the applicant considers revisions to their plans, this issue should be taken into consideration to see if a driveway could be extended to Tichy's as well. Private driveway maintenance and access agreements will need to be incorporated into covenants to permit access to the lots adjacent to private driveways as well as the Morin and Willis parcels. RECOMMENDATION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. 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. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 5. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater 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 and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. 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. 6. 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. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Sharmin Al-Jaff March 27, 1995 Page 7 Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 8. 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 shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 9. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 10. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 11. A water quality pond shall be provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. 12. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing home (Tichy) on Lot 15 shall be connected to the city sewer system within 12 months after the system becomes operational. Connection to city water is not required unless the well on Lot 15 fails. 13. The proposed single-family residential development of 11.48 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $22,730. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 14. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The construction plans shall include a draintile system behind the curbs and gutters on those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond. 15. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road. 16. Lots 1 through 3, 11 through 14, and 16 through 19, Block 1 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the city engineer pror to issuance of a building permit for the lot. 17. The plat and construction plans shall be revised incorporating the recommendation contained in this staff report to minimize grading and tree loss. Sharmin Al-Jaff March 27, 1995 Page 8 18. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Morins. 19. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No. 209 and a turnaround acceptable to the City's fire marshal. A private maintenance agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private street(s). 20. Street grades may be increase up to 10% and the City's right-of-way reduced to 50-foot wide if staff determines these measures will reduce grading and tree loss. 21. The applicant shall consider future street and utility access to the Willis property directly west of this development. jms c: Charles D. Folch, Director of Public Works/City Engineer g:`eng'diane\planning,Iklucw ppr 4 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: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: March 20, 1995 SUBJ: Subdivision 16.34 Acres to 19 Single Family Lots South of Lake Lucy Road Pointe Lake Lucy West, Michael Byrne Planning Case #95-3 SUB and #95-1 REZ I have reviewed the site plan in order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division and have the following fire code or city ordinance/ policy requirements: 1) Relocate fire hydrant from between Lots 1 & 2 to the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Pointe Road. Add one (1) fire hydrant between Lots 17 and 18. 2) 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 safety operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 3) Due to the close proximity of surrounding homes, any trees, shrubs, bushes, natural vegetation, will either have to be chipped, shredded or removed from the site. No burning permits will be issued. 4) Additional premise identification signage will be required for Lots 8 - 9 - 10 per Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 5) Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The turnaround may be modified if homes on lots 9, 10, 13 and 14 are protected by a NFPA 13 D fire sprinkler system. 6) Submit a street name for Outlot B to Fire Marshal for approval. g:\safetysroN95.3 95.3 .. CITY OF ... ii -i„: \-, ,, .,,,_.;,.,., ,_ __ CHANHASSEN ... .„, : :5„. ,„. :._ _. .. ,,‘ .: . . 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: Jill Kimsal, Forestry Intern DATE: March 23, 1995 SUBJ: Tree Inventory and Preservation, Point Lake Lucy West, Michael Byrne The applicant submitted a tree inventory survey and canopy coverage calculations for the development. The inventory failed to list all trees 12 inches in diameter and larger. Upon inspection of the site, staff found many trees that failed to be shown on the inventory. Threefore, the submitted inventory does not present the true image of the woodlands on site. Before approval of the development is granted, a revised tree inventory denoting All trees 12 inches and larger on site must be submitted. The site is very wooded with a wide range of species and age classes. Large, mature oaks exist throughout the site as well as thick stands of young ironwoods, aspens, ash, elms, and cottonwoods. There is a range of ages in all species on site implying that the woodlands are fertile and productive. One interesting find on the tree survey is the existence of a 24" Black Oak. While this tree is the most common upland oak in the eastern United States, its presence in Chanhassen is unique since the range of this species only extends to the three most southeastern counties in Minnesota. The tree is nearly identical in appearance to red and pin oaks, common to this area, but differs from them in the shape of the acorn. On inspection of the site, no acorns could be found to support or refute the claim. In the absence of the City's verification, however, the benefit of the doubt should be granted and measures taken to plan the preservation of such a rare and unique tree. Development in the southern portion as specified in plans would not be an option. Alternatives must be considered that would completely avoid the Black Oak (development would not be allowed within a distance of 1 1/2 times the dripline from the tree). According to applicant, existing tree canopy covers 9.11 acres out of the total 11.48 of upland acres. Therefore the existing canopy coverage would be 79%. The City's tree protection ordinance states that 46% of the existing canopy remain or 4.19 acres. The developer plans on removing 5. 28 acres of canopy during construction which would leave only 3.83 acres. The 1.45 acres that are lost are multiplied by 1.2 as specified in the tree preservation ordinance to calculate the reforestation requirements. A total of 1.74 acres or approximately 70 trees would have to be planted to meet city standards. Staff calculation of the site figured canopy coverage at 73%, or 8.35 acres. The developer is required to maintain 46%, 5.28 acres, canopy coverage after development. Canopy removal due to development was calculated to be 5.89 acres, leaving only 2.46 acres remaining. Replacement requirements would be for 1.2 times 2.82 acres for a total reforestation of 3.38 acres, or 135 trees. Since calculations of canopy coverage and removal differ significantly, applicant will need to verify calculations. Alignment of the city sewer lines is recommended along the northern edge of the wetland on the east side of the development. This route can be aligned so as to avoid a number of large trees and to take advantage of an existing cleared path. The site will be irrevocably changed by development. Because of extensive grading few, if any, trees will be able to be saved within the grading limits. Only those on the extreme edges will be left relatively unaffected. The applicant has proposed boulder walls to preserve some of the larger trees on site. Applicant will need to show elevations of all trees that are planned to be preserved. Trees with grade changes of more than 4 feet inside 50% or more of their dripline will not be recommended for preservation. So little of the original grades and environment will be retained that the future health of the remaining trees within grading limits must by carefully planned. LAKE LUCY ENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 28, 1995 Chanhassen City Officials *City Council *Planning Commission *Park & Recreation Commission Dear City Official, The information contained in this envelope relates to the proposed development by Michael Byrne known as Pointe Lake Lucy West located at 1471 Lake Lucy Road. The homeowners along Lake Lucy Road, from Willow Ridge subdivision and Greenwood Shores have serious concerns about the impact of the development as proposed. As our letter to all homeowners clearly indicates, we are not opposed to this property ultimately being developed. Rather, we would merely like to see the proposed site developed in an environmentally sensitive manner Our primary concerns with the proposed plan are: 1. The planned clearing and grading of approximately 80% to 90% of the site which will cause elimination of: a. the existing tree canopy b. the natural slopes on the site 2. The impact to Lake Lucy from run-off due to the clearing and grading 3. The negative impact upon the property valuations of neighborhood homes by completely changing the pristine character of the north shore of Lake Lucy Our letter to our neighbors more thoroughly sets forth our concerns. We look forward to working with you to ensure that development in our community, and particularly in our neighborhood, is done in a responsible manner. Thank you for your time and interest in serving our community. Sincerely, The Lake Lucy Environment Preservation Committee LAKE LUCY ENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 28, 1995 Neighbors of Interest Around Lake Lucy Dear Neighbors, As you may already know, development of 16.34 acres of property per the attached "Notice of Public Hearing" is being proposed in our neighborhood. Joe & Gayle Morin, who live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road, and Mary & Al Weingart, who recently purchased the island/peninsula and will be purchasing the residence at 1685 Steller Court, are concerned about the impact of the proposed development. We want to make it clear right upfront that we are not opposed to this property ultimately being developed. We recognize that subject to city ordinances a property owner has a right to develop his/her property. Rather, we are concerned about the specific plan being proposed for this sight and the impact it will have on the surrounding neighborhood. The subject property has significant tree cover, hills, wetlands and wildlife. While not all of this can be expected to be preserved. the proposed plan calls for the virtual clearing and grading of 80% to 90% of the site. This will cause up to 2/3rds of the existing tree canopy to be destroyed. This includes a large number of 24 to 40 inch diameter White Oaks and Black Oaks -- trees over 100 years old. The attached proposed grading plat map highlights this impact. The only areas which are not proposed for grading are unbuildable due to either wetlands or extreme slopes. The placing of 18 additional residential lots, extensive streets and retention pond(s) on only 10 "buildable" acres essentially requires a complete reconfiguration of the land contours and extensive filling of the site, particularly down along the lakeshore. To accomplish this will require virtually bulldozing the entire property. The development of the Coey property by Mason Homes, which was just approved, took into consideration the preservation of the natural attributes of the setting. Mason's project will accommodate 19 residential lots on 15 buildable acres. Additionally, this site is better suited to homesites due to the more forgiving topography and the locations of significant inland wetlands. We would merely like to see the proposed site similarly developed in an environmentally sensitive manner - - that's all we're asking. For that to happen, however, we need you to contact the members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission or other Chanhassen officials, preferably in writing and by phone. (A list of these people is attached.) Your participation at the Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday, April 5th at 7:00PM would also be very helpful in preventing what we believe could become a total destruction of this lakeshore site. If necessary, we may be contacting you about signing a petition requesting the developer to conduct an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project to further weigh the potential damage to the site, wildlife and Lake Lucy. Hopefully, the developer, Mike Byrne, will reconsider his current proposal so that this will not be necessary. Should you wish to discuss this further with Morin's (474-1186) or Weingart's (474-6884), please give either of us a call, The City Planner who is handling this development proposal is Sharmin Al Jaff (937-1900 X120). She may be able to provide you with further details and the status of this development proposal. Thanks for your consideration of this request, and we hope to see you or your representative(s) at the April 5th meeting. Sincerely, 41' Lei' jz,,,,,rf 7/ . a/t, aiK ..._ 2z2e.,,t, Al & M' Weingart Joe & Gayle Morin 5330 St. Albans Bay Road 1441 Lake Lucy Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 5531 cc: Chanhassen City Council Chanhassen Planning Commission Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission Don Chmiel Sharmin Al Jaff Michael Byrne '` 1 • •• hi 1�( I63Rq 4 4� �.s��l'L! WM� & "ON daTill a — 7l� ra� rI — maim._,-'-'- ii�'I( ST - PAR . f NOTICE OF PUBLIC ?di PHEASAN HEARING ,4"i N. H/LL I`�.Z�y littee,_` c f PARK o iii�� lPLANNING COMMISSIONMIL._. } ■ ,..,„ MEETING CY LANE Wednesday, APRIL 5, 1995 II 41101 A- :EACH ��at 7:00 p.m. , L - ' N, t�City Hall Council Chambers ; -� .�� 690 Coulter Drive LAKE OAR je � r_' r Project: Pointe Lake Lucy West . Developer: Michael Byrne c' K.._,.. Location: 1471 Lake Lucy Road ,_.., , If ,,r • • .ter I /s/"V Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a request to rezone 16.34 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat of 16.34 acres into 19 single family lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot wide right-of-way located south on Lake Lucy Road (1471), Pointe Lake Lucy West. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 23, 1995. * The Park and Recreation Commission will review this item at their meeting on Tuesday, March 28, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. . I el .v N 1 N � w '=LLI zN _z >. } W U CO N } JLL Z A3f11 3V11 1 G ILJ ...1 gr 0 44%-iV 0 IN- VI 1 lo C.) co ' > %** --.\ 4 cc Z H U -2 ' /iir,. Z U CO a z Iliii111111111i, ■■..11► m �'--- - . - W c,._, W -- N 1111111111111111111111t a 3 J CU �- Iwwww■wwwulwowriw. 1_ -% !UHC,1,1Ii1 i11I=1' . W e3 'ew�ri•�w��rwwlrlwww. F- �� a►�llwrww�i�� z �) /. � x V AL' 1 KIIIIIM1111/ �" • •\\ \ ■>•ww11R ■wwwrwwt, : / //I�wwl1•ow■MEMMI �\ /%w�t♦11'ii 7;;; wwi ' /f,%1111% �I %:C, \ ‘ 1 N , ► 1I � 1 . . N . ,\ ,\.-, \ _ 4 i _ial11`-N, ' ■••iiu•r/!/mcv% /►IGNWEI .MINIIIIIIIIIIIMED ww w Iaii - O /■Miirsici n': �..1"::1111i pIIIt i.--Q • IwswarLR O--"' ,, I�iw•Qu\1n]11 J .se*wimEr:► • ' .mwrwsl■ivnwe ,,.�- LLl i�ll1/w/�" ANNUM ■wl1r2at ¢ Q ■wI■aw :t:�w111Jw1®i1�1 '' ATC 11� ■■1,761!'1, ' ■1:14:1,41/1111:1. W J ■Rwrt IMuuui /►:�!I1I r!!• r• , MIMIllaIEWANFinri / .� CJ c1 \ �� 1•w� •,;(', . �11iOwww!%f/.'v .' . ; . ,/ T ▪ - . . i' : - . NNP. s�!..wwwle , w■www 2 _ www ■ r ' - www■■ - ',/,--•? „ .- -- ,. . :\f‘, , • , . ._,0:. „_.:;,, , il pl. � wwwta■ / 51 r' 1-- r _ CITY OF CHANHASSEN OFFICIALS CITY COUNCIL Don Chmiel Mike Mason Mayor Councilman 7100 Tecumseh Lane 829 Woodhill Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 474-6446 474-7320 Steven Berquist Colleen Dockendorf Councilman Councilwoman 7207 Frontier Trail 2061 Oakwood Ridge Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 937-2416 470-4112 Mark Senn City Hall Councilman 690 Coulter Drive 7160 Willow View Cove P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 949-2272 937-1900 FAX: 937-5739 PLANNING COMMISSION Nancy Mancino Ladd Conrad Vice-Chairperson 6625 Horseshoe Curve 6620 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55317 HM: 474-9563 HM: 474-3861 WK: 332-5190 Jeff Farm;ices 7100 Utica Lane Ronald Nutting Chanhassen, MN 55317 6524 Gray Fox Curve HM & WK: 474-8148 Chanhassen, MN 55317 HM: 934-7212 Michael Meyer 981 Butte Court Bob Skubic Chanhassen, MN 55317 8619 Chanhassen Hills Drive North HM: 470-4114 Chanhassen, MN 55317 WK: 458-7364 HM: 934-8445 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Michael J. Byrne APPLICANT: Michael J. Byrne OWNER: Brian & Nancy Tichv 5428 Kimberly Road ADDRESS: 5428 Kimberly Road ADDRESS: 1471 Lake Lucy Road Minnetonka , MN 55345 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Chanhassen, MN 55317 949-9096 TELEPHONE (Day time) 949-9096 TELEPHONE: 474-0471 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14, Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. x Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review x Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. x Subdivision - TOTAL FEE $1 , 3 3 5 . 0 0 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. ,;r1 , `jr i;^r;\HA;SE • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. • Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract FP4r! THEX T'N MELS NH 3. :. 1935 14: 713 F: .3 SS/BS/199F 12!54 473-4435 CCFFI,N 8 GRJNBER3 PA 03 PROJECT NAME POI NTE LAKE LUCY wrsT LOCATION # 511 A 7 # Lake Lucy ttoad Chanhassen LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attached • PRESENT ZONING Ri j'nl Resident i•31 ME0003TED ZONING RSF Regir.c�ie Fd11�iI �� r PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Resi dent 1 a 1-Loy Dens i t y REQUESTED LAND US! DEStGNATIQNt ential-_ Low Qs ns REASON FOCI THIS REQUEST A4r31,y , c 19 : ' g. - 1 i s This supplication must tee completed in full and be typewrttten or oiearly printed and met b,aeeaorrperied by att I mutt •n ansa piens required by applicable City Ordnance provisions Before filing this application, you stud cosies, wstn the filannind Doar4mert to determine the apeolfic ordinance and praorrdural requirements appfkshhle to your appll ion. Me la to certify that I em making appilcetlon for the described align by the City arid them I em resporrelble tsar 6rr>Qtying with ant City requirements wi h regard to this request. This application should be!amassed rt y name and Is : party whom the Clty should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have sttsohed a copy • of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certlficate of The. Abstract of Tide or purchase arnent), or.', ern the authorized person to make this applicatIon and the fee owner has also signed this application. • 1 I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for sabmlasion of material and the progress of this appilcatton d further understand that eddltlonal fees may be charged for cpnsulting fees, fesUbWhy studies, stowith an estimate p tO any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are tete and oorrahu t• the best of my know wive• I shag understand that after the approval Or granting of the permit, suoh permits shalt be invalid unless they ..rded against the tide to the aro`t" $ property for whlCtt the arpprovatipertnh is greraQd within 120 days with thin Carver Cotsrsty R -.titters Offk:a and the original document returned to City Hall Records. $larl�...l grit D,„ Date tea► �,% 3 f /9s--• SIQre of Fen; ler 67s7 Applioatton Received or 'I'S Fee Peld ?l$'7 Reoelpt NO. The applicant should contest staff for • copy of the stern report whicii will be sviiIN 14 on PrRlity prkto the mooting. It not contacted, a copy of the report will be matted 10 the applicant's Wren. 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: That part of Government Lot 5,Section 2,Township 116 North,Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Government Lot 5;thence on an assumed bearing of North 87 degrees 50 minutes 47 seconds West,along the north line of said Government Lot 5,a distance of 488.42 feet, to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing North 87 degrees 50 minutes 47 seconds West,along said north line,a distance of 205.56 feet,to a point distant 647.29 feet easterly from the northwest corner of said Government Lot 5; thence South 0 degrees 24 minutes 23 seconds West,parallel with the west line of Section 2,about 1342 feet to the shoreline of Lake Lucy; thence easterly,along said shoreline, to the intersection with a line drawn South 0 degrees 24 minutes 23 seconds West,parallel with the west line of Section 2,from the point of beginning;thence North 0 degrees 24 minutes 23 seconds East,about 1247 feet,to the point of beginning.Carver County, Minnesota. ALSO That part of Government Lot 5,Section 2,Township 116 North,Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Government Lot 5 distant 275.00 feet East of the Northwest corner of said Lot 5;thence east along said North line a distance of 272..29 feet;thence south parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 5 a distance of 1320.00 feet; thence southerly,deflecting right 22 degrees 37 minutes a distance of 214.50 feet; thence south parallel with said west line a distance of 132.00 feet; thence southeasterly,deflecting left 51 degrees 53 minutes a distance of 107.00 feet;thence west parallel with with said north line to its intersection with a line drawn southerly parallel with said west line; thence northerly along'said parallel line to the point of beginning. (Note: this legal is preliminary,and is subject to a title search for proper wording.) I g .. m i 163Rq Ora FROIPPAMM • NOTICE OF PUBLIC ' IjPHEAS.HEARING PARK W PLANNING COMMISSION clR � �6- L ; 0 ■ �� g I MEETING CY LANE �� Wednesday, APRIL 5, 1995 0 / at 7:00 p.m. *it? CA' :EACH " u, ',•City Hall Council Chambersi•'f'LA• UN" �r. 690 Coulter Drive LAKE O`R /A)0° 51 Project: Pointe Lake Lucy West ' V4 Developer: Michael Byrne ti Location: 1471 Lake Lucy Road = Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a request to rezone 16.34 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat of 16.34 acres into 19 single family lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot wide right-of-way located south on Lake Lucy Road (1471), Pointe Lake Lucy West. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 23, 1995. * The Park and Recreation Commission will review this item at their meeting on Tuesday, March 28, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the ei&-, City Council Chambers. Alfred & May Harvey Elizabeth Glaccum Dept. of Natural Resources 1430 Lake Lucy Road 1510 Lake Lucy Road 500 Lafayette Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Waconia, MN 55387 Joseph & Gayle Morin Mark & Kathryn Sanda Kristi Jill Willis 1441 Lake Lucy Road 1685 Steller Ct. 6890 Utica Terrace Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phillip Thiesse & Myrna Johnson Theodore R. Coey Kim Teming Thiesse 1630 Lake Lucy Road 1381 Lake Lucy Road 1675 Steller Ct. Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Almond Krueger Robert & Sandra Kendall Coffman Development Co. 1600 Lake Lucy Road 3734 Elmo Road 117 Sentinel Building Excelsior, MN 55331 Minnetonka, MN 55305 5151 Edina Industrial Blvd. Edina, MN 55439 i s t,I I 63 ' W •�� fa"S =PM a 'ONS IfivittlYr 7:7:14 '•+j++ FCS�+i�fG' • .— . - . IP NOTICE OF PUBLIC ° •i�� PHEASAN PAR HEARING 4,4 EN H/LL ��%Z� h 4 �F PARK * sb PLANNING COMMISSION N ■ M MEETING C LANE Wednesday, APRIL 5, 1995 L; at 7:00 p.m. Avg _� • �► , . City Hall Council Chambers ',� � .,4 690 Coulter Drive LAKE oUR � _ Project: Pointe Lake Lucy West Developer: Michael Byrne _2 Location: 1471 Lake Lucy Road Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a request to rezone 16.34 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat of 16.34 acres into 19 single family lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot wide right-of-way located south on Lake Lucy Road (1471), Pointe Lake Lucy West. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 23, 1995. * The Park and Recreation Commission will review this item at their meeting on Tuesday, March 28, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the je76 City Council Chambers. /5) ?'�` 11,,',9 5s Alfred & May Harvey Elizabeth Glaccum Dept. of Natural Resources 1430 Lake Lucy Road 1510 Lake Lucy Road 500 Lafayette Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Waconia, MN 55387 Joseph & Gayle Morin Mark & Kathryn Sanda Kristi Jill Willis 1441 Lake Lucy Road 1685 Steller Ct. 6890 Utica Terrace Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Philip Thiesse & Myrna Johnson Theodore R. Coey Kim Terning Thiesse 1630 Lake Lucy Road 1381 Lake Lucy Road 1675 Steller Ct. Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Almond Krueger Robert & Sandra Kendall Coffman Development Co. 1600 Lake Lucy Road 3734 Elmo Road 117 Sentinel Building Excelsior, MN 55331 Minnetonka, MN 55305 5151 Edina Industrial Blvd. Edina, MN 55439 CITY 0F - PC DATE: 4/5/95 \-\, C• 1'J' S s CC DATE: 4/24/95 CASE #: 95-4 Site Plan Review By: Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 12,166 square foot, two story bank building/office building r ZLOCATION: 7800 Kerber Boulevard, southwest corner of West 78th Street and Kerber Q U Boulevard J CL APPLICANT: Richfield State Agency B. C. Burdick Q_ 6625 Lyndale Avenue South 684 Excelsior Boulevard 4 Richfield, MN 55423 Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 861-8342 PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development, PUD ACREAGE: 1.43 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - BG, West Village Center S - PUD, vacant lot Q E - PUD, Market Square; Kerber Blvd. W - PUD, Target (...i w WATER AND SEWER: Available to site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is vacant and has been previously impacted by (r) development. There are no trees on site and the area is sparsely vegetated with grass. The site slopes from north to south with an elevation change from 972 to 957. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial I • I . rant I .�� GK' J1II 0 .��•c uIt I I CHA/STMAS 7'I I NENNEPINI COUNTY r m»* ` 6200 mil "!"41 KFLAKEyi d7 I ht�., .e,.�is .w-i1�=orm me\ sirent,...al-r/ '� Nt'a _ 0 ill/ r 1 ,,aorde .4;:l 6300 .dal •o. q.�� 11r� } .■..upEtampiiii‘ " ♦� lir* � 4,1 w ♦'�I / .1!• �7►. -- irk!! ■ i�\�._S ! :11:�►r.rA :-0-1.r. ►a irk• � •� s►-. �l� ��- �vjA ��y'� R��'�,li • .a — 6<00 C :sil ..•i�EiM'�a..s:E�its! . - A i ' .1s sAsokiov, ��i `I-'��a�► t ".r�i��/I; �ltJ,r E 11 ��: 1■ V 0•- I' , .' 4.,,t/(' rov. Nat !_ ,..�{.. C , —�� "� Lr��- /:Sx!• ►"lti •�� /NAK ` y� !: O 1 �'� ``� ♦+ .- , • 6500 ,11111"*41• d � - F■_ a1i1y�11Y1�a 4WD: 1!.774ll tip •�I�� `t •117.1 "!f1111l1�.ho fr. �� A, ` 6600 1. I_I=%�'� i_u.61■1.1....T'i►• .6 e,,Er' (.� e's ,...=, 4ii ■ •. ♦ �� BEACH ` ' ► � �iib ♦ A, 014,:AI wilt• rlllii i'J PARK ,;�� , i.,ar�•• X b ` � ". rL.wy.. T�w, 1, ), 11 iit okr,,g. ' ;•�ns-I 51:w1R�Ik N VWig7 p t."--7 ' - ,� S., 6700 ‘,1+17. ��_ :^vim -�,r'''��:v�, .�"° ;'� %` �� II►�p lik A fii v _.1 �_ ♦ . .s:-��_• ,.....44t,-- � PARK � ��. 6soo y'J.�� T .,► �— Vie. s dal$11111111 11■O'�,�+Uy• l�.� �� ,l►.`�4 •��— • it k\`A`� .' �Sr�r• � • • _ 6900 II■■ :2 7; 'W .r►,•�i LOTUS ; �1 LAKE LUCr H!t��!7 •i:;%y.!jG' r,•rar► �f Nt�l, l yI i »`�, Iit !'. `M 1_- ,1, b•yt.7 \ W.;i�. 7000 II �i:r 7.. _ _i 11111 ix, �=w \-- �, _. 'tr.: `•►. -1411 11■E :__ ' ': /� 'a:qm /Ip►��V jp��''�,vi:� 7,00 REENW•o•AlliiiakillV��•......•••y 101 , r i •u► • I.• ��1 4211111 — A R a�,1111111l111�� `,�1, .IIIIP♦♦• E 1110111'ar �rl�f 7200 ,11U,u_- •...� 1.11.:::!!,: .•?per �� . I` 4,4111 �x �• ♦ LAKE -Nit-i:11,��• _ GREEN PARK ti iiia°■ .� ♦�� r.��1p� O■I 7300 I LAKE ANN o��.^.eS� i�j11f♦�� \/■nu� I ;\ \ 7,3 vain '��i ► ��♦ef ...,. .. %/ g g 'rj�* Ali �1 n" . L� 1.�±.7C04be 7400 s� .ice': S'ifs•--...,946,v.,il..0‘,..`4-i,L...---.� �: $ m CML. y MI LAK H ��,.; �hw...- ,� r;:��f.a,`; �ill� ■� .,-, \ m r . . 4� [_f��mato. Wil', pia`I / 41 . ANN 1, IfAll! irr�lrrirr.►t,.r� ... I a :.:.. W ?=..r r rr. = _7Irx..r •iY ......1.1. ..,.,wsr..►�` IIII _ a`.c w...0 k.. u ' �.. ht WN ..se: ....a To ..; % l R ` .r.i;w.c.ter+ 11. ()CAT! •. , ii .0 1 OIII 11111 num - ^ z s, s —7 ll! me.„10,4, .ummun .._,. lar- pit gig tl nowt,1 `•• it NANNASS ------ .�•A•' � � •� ' '� '-..•I.:�Ir....t£STATES - . I;-1.. . MM!PARK -.__ /v,•� a gas 4 6,-900a /� ,r n1 0v PARK ,LW 4.1-4-.00, . a�1 ..:/t'I.1 / t. .z 6200 3 .on is ' L /•, LAKE w � ~'l-irfovr -_ .= s...., - _ 8300 u C1 ,. -\ c.ac PARK \ .// .;�.��w1�1►.}fes .' �,'+f ,i..I /p' ., r..t.. • o Q i SIN.+ 1 i '� / e,; p% 4 ..- �L , LAKE SUSAN I J R,► _ / A/ V ,At ti'"a• ss4. !P4- lt �, r'► ��► v'.. -�c.. 'aril,wit 'o. r RIC A/ RSH LAKE > Lrr1 .Hs ..mp„r •.. A• , -. - ,--- S 4N, , + 1 ,.`a� ^� • 6 .��Illu..!lr��rill- Hit Ab,- i�7 3 f " ,-_,.- /o c 0.00 war �� ' �'�.... :►��. fLa� ri111111111111 `11111_ ,r1 � �. _ I••••� , 1. 3 -ii b1� 1 :viii. . ) / 4... 0sE• /-- 6700 �• • yam,` + I •,i�,,i� �� /�f♦�'!4 �♦� ��.�C .�I' c I. Richfield Bank & Trust Site Plan 95-4 April 5, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a two story, 12,166 square foot office building. The primary use of the structure will be a Richfield Bank and Trust office with additional lease space. The architectural design is more "high tech" than existing structures within the downtown area. However, the building has incorporated many elements that are present in the community including the use of a pitched roof, use of brick as the primary building material, provision of accent banding, and the use of glazed windows. The primary building color is a buff sand color with a secondary accent of pale cherry (mahogany) colored brick. The applicant has incorporated a three foot wide alucobond accent band at the top of the first floor and two 1/2 foot wide alucobond bands in the second story (alucobond is a metallic panel). The structure incorporates a metallic batten roof system. The roof system and accent banding are silver- grey in color. The main floor elevation is approximately eight feet lower than West 78th Street. This change in elevation will partially hide the parking lot from view from West 78th Street. Drive through banking facilities are proposed on the southwest corner of the structure. A pedestrian plaza is provided in the northeast corner of the building. A sidewalk from West 78th Street into the development is provided in the northeast corner of the site. Staff is also recommending that the applicant extend the sidewalk system down Kerber Boulevard to the south end of the site. The applicant is proposing a fountain structure as a backdrop for their monument sign at the corner of Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street. In addition, staff has discussed the provision of benches or seating around the fountain to provide a community space at the corner of West 78th Street and Kerber Boulevard as envisioned in the vision 2002. Access to the site is provided via a driveway connection to the Target parking lot as well as a driveway cut on Kerber Boulevard. Staff has concerns about the use of the driveway cut for joint access to this property and the property to the south due to the conflicting traffic movements in this area. We have provided a revised driveway configuration that eliminates this joint access for the property to the south. The applicant is proposing extensive landscaping within the development. The proposed plan exceeds minimum code requirements. With minor revisions, staff believes that the landscaping plan will be an excellent addition to the downtown area. The applicant had originally submitted a site plan to staff which located the building closer to West 78th Street, at the 50 foot setback line, and placed the primary parking area on the south side of the building. However, the plan also located the drive through at the northeast corner of the site. Staff believed that this configuration was not the best design for the site or Richfield Bank & Trust Site Plan 95-4 April 5, 1995 Page 3 the downtown area and recommended that the applicant revise the plan to relocate the drive through to another location. The applicant responded with the site plan before you today. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions contained in this report. The proposed development is consistent with the City's Highway 5 corridor design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the design guidelines established as part of the Target PUD, and the site plan review requirements. The site has few existing natural amenities due to previous development in the area. The site design is compatible and harmonious with the approved development for this area. BACKGROUND Since the approval of the PUD for Target, 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 from Highway 5. The site meets this standard. The parking setback needs to be consistent with the overlay district which is a minimum of 20 feet. The site parking meets this requirement. 2. The architectural design is consistent with the overlay standards. The building is stucco. • The materials and details of the buildings are consistent with the Hwy. 5 standards. 3. Landscaping around the perimeter will be done by the city including the gateway. The interior landscaping needs to be revised per staff recommendations. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE 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. Richfield Bank & Trust Site Plan 95-4 April 5, 1995 Page 4 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 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 use is 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. Richfield Bank & Trust Site Plan 95-4 April 5, 1995 Page 5 Street Building Parking Setback Setback West 78th 50 feet 20 feet Kerber Boulevard 25 feet 20 feet FINDING: The proposal meets these standards. d. Development Standards Tabulation Box USE Lot Area Bldg. Sq. Ft. Parking Landscaped Coverage Height Spaces Area Office 1.43 12,166 54 37% 63% 46' * * At roof peak 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. Richfield Bank & Trust Site Plan 95-4 April 5, 1995 Page 6 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. f. 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 walls 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 has prepared a landscaping plan for the development. Such plan exceeds the minimum landscaping requirement for tree quantities. The applicant shall be responsible for providing irrigation to any development trees. The applicant shall install an Richfield Bank & Trust Site Plan 95-4 April 5, 1995 Page 7 aeration/irrigation tubing in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. g. Signage One freestanding pylon sign be permitted for Target. This site is limited to a monument sign. 1. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign . 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. 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 has met the intent of the PUD standards for the site. The monument sign shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. h. Lighting 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than l/ 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 Corten, shoe box light standards. Richfield Bank & Trust Site Plan 95-4 April 5, 1995 Page 8 FINDING: The development complies with the lighting requirements established in the PUD. ACCESS The site is proposed to be accessed via Kerber Drive on the east and also from the existing Target parking lot on the west. The Kerber Drive access point proposes to utilize a common driveway for both this lot and the lot immediately to the south (Lot 2). Staff has traffic safety concerns with the proposed intersection configuration. Staff has redesigned the entrance as shown on Attachment 1. Staff believes that this is a much better design and also facilitates fire truck turning movements whereas the previous proposal did not. In addition, the proposed configuration may limit or impair the future development proposal on Lot 2. Staff believes that each lot should have its own access point on to Kerber Drive. The access point from the Target parking lot was previously approved with the Target site plan. Some additional grading will have to be done and possible landscaping transplanted as a result of the access point. With the exception of the driveway access onto Kerber Drive, the site circulates rather well and provides pedestrian access from West 78th Street. SITE GRADING The parcel slopes southwesterly from West 78th Street. The northerly parking lot is proposed to be approximately six feet lower than West 78th Street. This deviation in grade appears to be necessary in order to be compatible with the Target site directly to the west and Kerber Drive to the east. The parcel south of this development also continues to slope significantly to the southwest, therefore, the difference in site grading between West 78th Street and the proposed building is justified. Erosion control measures such as silt fence and rock construction entrances need to be incorporated into the grading plan. DRAINAGE The site is proposed to drain southeasterly to Kerber Drive where a set of catch basins will convey stormwater runoff into an existing storm sewer system. The storm sewer system will carry the stormwater runoff to the "Target" pond located south of Target where the water will be pretreated prior to discharging downstream. No surface water management fees will be required since this development has been incorporated into the downtown stormwater management plan and previously assessed for those improvements. As a result of staff's recommendation on the driveway access modification on Kerber Drive, the storm sewer catch basins will have to be adjusted slightly. Staff requests that the applicant submit stormwater drainage calculations for a 10-year storm event to verify storm sewer capacities. Richfield Bank & Trust Site Plan 95-4 April 5, 1995 Page 9 UTILITIES In conjunction with the proposed site grading, existing manholes and gate valves may require adjustment up or down to be compatible with the site. The applicant shall be responsible for adjustment of all City manholes and gate valves as a result of site grading. The site is serviced with municipal sanitary sewer and water from Kerber Drive. A municipal sewer line also runs parallel to the west property line of the site. The plans propose extending the sewer service from the existing sewer line on the west side of the building. Staff believes that the existing sewer and water service provided on Kerber Drive should be utilized instead of extending a new sewer line from the sanitary sewer on the west side of the building. The City's Building Department will be responsible for inspection of all utility connections. The appropriate permits will have to be applied for and obtained through the City's Building Department. Upon review of the landscaping plan, plantings are proposed very close to manholes and gate valves on the west side of the property. The landscape planting material should be relocated to allow enough room for access to and maintenance of the manholes and gate valves. Staff requests a 10-foot clear zone around the manholes and gate valves. The landscape plans should be revised accordingly. LANDSCAPING The proposed landscaping plan has the following distribution of trees: ornamentals - 55 percent (29), conifers - 36 percent (19), primary - 6 percent, and secondary - 4 percent (2). The landscape plan for Richfield Bank and Trust exceeds ordinance requirements for amount of plant material. However, based of parking area square footage, the applicant needs eight (8) canopy deciduous trees. Five primary trees have been specified in the plans, three Sugar maples, one Patmore ash, and one Imperial honeylocust. Substituting a variety of white oak for the two Greenspire lindens located on either side of the sidewalk in the northeast corner of the site would take care of two more primary deciduous trees. The third tree could be either a Patmore Ash, Imperial Locust, or any other tree from the city's primary or secondary deciduous tree list in place of the northernmost crabapple on the peninsula landscape area at the northwest corner of the bank. One other concern is the spacing of the three Scotch pines in the north side of the site. The City would like one of the pines removed in order to achieve better spacing of the remaining trees and to reduce the potential for crowding. Richfield Bank & Trust Site Plan 95-4 April 5, 1995 Page 10 City code requires that landscaping plans must be a minimum percentage of the project value excluding the land value. To ensure completion of the landscaping, the city, as part of the development contract, requires financial securities. The applicant shall supply the city with an $22,500 financial guarantee (letter of credit or cash escrow) to guarantee landscaping for the project. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE The lighting requirements have been established as part of the PUD development for Target. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than lh candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. Light poles shall be Corten, shoe box light standards. The signage standards have been established as part of the Target PUD. This property is allowed one monument sign . Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 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. All signs require a separate permit. 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 or a foundation. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. The applicant is proposing wall signage on the northwest and southeast elevations of the building. These wall signs are approximately 72 square feet in area each. This represents about 25 percent of the permitted sign area that would be permitted. The wall area is approximately 2,000 square feet. At 15 percent of the wall area, signage of approximately 300 square feet would be permitted. Even if limited to code requirements, the applicant could have up to approximately 180 square feet. The applicant is also proposing a fountain structure as part of the monument signage for the site. This structure is located in the northeast corner of the property and is eight feet tall and approximately 15 feet wide. The actual sign area is approximately 37 square feet. The sign structure is made of concrete with brick cap, sides and back to match the building brick. Individual letters are patina red bronze of copper. The fountain walls will be of colored concrete. A base mounted lighting system will be used. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide a bench or other seating system as part of the fountain area to create a sense of public space. Richfield Bank & Trust Site Plan 95-4 April 5, 1995 Page 11 The lighting plan appears to meet code requirements. Light poles shall be neutral colors. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than '/i candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. Light poles shall be Corten, shoe box light standards. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and Richfield Bank & Trust Site Plan 95-4 April 5, 1995 Page 12 d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's Highway 5 corridor design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the design guidelines established as part of the Target PUD, and the site plan review requirements. The site has few existing natural amenities due to previous development in the area. The site design is compatible, functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Site Plan #95-4 for Richfield Bank and Trust for a 12,166 square foot two story office building on property zoned PUD located on Lot 1, Block 3, Burdick Park Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The access to the bank off Kerber Blvd. is unacceptable. The current design is such that responding fire apparatus would have to travel in the opposing lane on Kerber in order to negotiate the turn. Submit further options to Fire Marshal for review and approval. 2. Install one (1) additional fire hydrant at entrance to bank parking lot of Kerber Blvd. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location. 3. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. Pursuant to City Ordinance 9-1. 4. The driveway access from Kerber Drive shall be revised per staff's recommendation as shown on Attachment 1. 5. Sanitary sewer and water service for the building shall be from Kerber Drive. Richfield Bank & Trust Site Plan 95-4 April 5, 1995 Page 13 6. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with storm drainage calculations for a 10-year storm event. 7. The applicant will be responsible for relocating all existing landscape plant materials that will be in conflict with the site grading. 8. The applicant will be responsible for adjustment of all City manholes and gate valves that are affected by the result of site grading. 9. The City's Building Inspection Department will perform the inspections for all utility connections. The applicant will need to apply for and obtain the appropriate permits through the City's Building Department. 10. The applicant shall install a one-way traffic control sign on Target's employee parking lot island directly west of the proposed access to Target's parking lot. 11. Erosion control fence and rock construction entrances need to be included on the grading plan. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points. Construction access to the site shall be limited to Kerber Drive. A revised grading plan shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. The applicant shall install a six foot sidewalk from West 78th Street to the southern property line within the Kerber Boulevard right-of-way. 13. Light poles shall be neutral colors. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than / candle at the property line. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. Light poles shall be Corten, shoe box light standards. 14. The applicant shall provide a bench or other seating system as part of the fountain area to create a sense of public space. 15. The applicant shall install aeration/irrigation tubing in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. 16. The applicant shall supply the city with an $22,500 financial guarantee (letter of credit or cash escrow) to guarantee landscaping for the project. Richfield Bank & Trust Site Plan 95-4 April 5, 1995 Page 14 17. Revise the landscaping plan substituting a variety of white oak for the two Greenspire lindens located on either side of the sidewalk in the northeast corner of the site and replace the northern most crabapple on the peninsula landscape area at the northwest corner of the bank with either a Patmore Ash, Imperial Locust, or any other tree from the city's primary or secondary deciduous tree list. 18. Remove one of the three Scotch pines on the north side of the site. ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Letter from Jeffrey J. Pflipsen to Robert Generous dated 3/6/95 3. Revised Entrance 4. Tree Guide, from A Guide to Field Identification: Trees of North America, C. Frank Brockman, Western Publishing Company, Inc., 1986 5. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List 6. Site plan dated March 6, 1995 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY, INC. OWNER: B. C. BURDICK (OWNER PURSUANT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 16 , 1995) 684 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD ADDRESS: 6625 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH ADDRESS: RICHFIELD, MN 55423 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TELEPHONE Da time 861-8342 STEVE KIR (Day ) HONE: 866-8711 JAN SUSEE 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easemerrts 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. XX Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey 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" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME RICHFIELD BANK & TRUST CO. LOCATION SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND KERBER BOULEVARD LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1 , BLOCK 3 , BURDICK PARK ADDITION, TOGETHER WITH THE VACATED PORTION OF WEST 78TH STREET ACCRUING HERETO TO BE VACATED. ALSO TOGETHER WITH DOCUMENT NO. T75496 . PRESENT ZONING PUD REQUESTED ZONING NO CHANGE PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION COMMERCIAL REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION NO CHANGE REASON FOR THIS REQUEST SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT nF T,nT 1 RT.nr'x 3 , BURDICK PARK ADDITION This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY, INC. BY L v-2ti 3 %I` Signature of Applicant Date STEVEN L. KIRCHNER, COO 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. '(1 ----/..----, .. 3of� ii CO I ; ___j --. LE EE „...,...... u on. E — e'�, ® ®-r i+i K,... ., I r ss •0. I -4 ( po 0 \ 0 ;TM IP; 97''' ' "9 1..-0.0 .73.1: iol i. I, y / ..��, � 1 !: 1.1V; 4,. A i Vis + Ael-*** 4. o ► : •may m £ z i lip x . A I v. .r ,!i\ ' I; G � y ] 0 I • I rn • Witt 4 ',,...: '''''',.‘ • i AP OF I kFRaFR .\ g J i �� '� '- a 3;iill ill �3 i RII, -- y i �g N FE a - I � _ �k.rZ" E c i gig GIS424 ••• 211. ri 0 z li i [•41.131C,WM.%IT.sl-Sat. ]-✓,, Is it t]..Gil RICHFIELD BANK&TRUST aii alauna, HICKEY,THORSTENSOR GROVER LTD. D CHANHASSEN FACILITY vor'''P ARCHITECTS SrtF NmFS r.1........1... iwu......i 1116 101 it —1. NEW BUILDING Ha " i CHANHASSEIL LINNESOTA ' "" �.'� . co A A tii A><- 4 A -• ..LI._ __ — n • • z — • • 2 (---- — -. II II S LI L t 1 - (7 x Ir-- m I I ii m> II ...1t Z : II x II a II I — =moilII i CA I I ,_ II — II II II II • _ ,—_�-. I I IN I • _, I L 5 H _ ig1 I i I° S 3 ° ie1 ; 4 - - -I i _ _ j ea �� - —� ;■ •al n 30 1 iuHl IIM — MINIIII IIMMIk IMIL IlliW IIIIII IIII 11, 11111III WIC lilt _ _— I EC i' -I .1 RICHFIELD BANK&TRUST fl A1Th Hp(EY,iHCRSTENSON GROVEFI.uTa ;— CHANHASSEN ARCHITECTS D ' •Ir.p....>_.. lK r.._le.a .Dry 1 CHANHASSEK MINNESOTA L.'s `� ".—` - ?� HICKEY. THORSTENSON. GROVER, LTD. Jon P. Thorstenson ARCHITECTS James R. Grover t Jeffrey J. Pflipsen 6950 France Avenue South Edina, MN 55435 (612) 920- 1881 06 March 1995 Mr. Robert Generous Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. 147 Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317 Re: Richfield Bank& Trust, Chanhassen Office Proposed Chanhassen Office Chanhassen,MN Dear Bob; As you requested, below is a brief summary of the proposed building design, image & material selection for your use. The information is based on the March 06, 1995 proposed site plan(s), building elevations, perspective and floor plans. IMAGE: The design provides an 'image' that is consumer-friendly, non-threatening/monumental and warm, with some clean crisp accent(bands) material to add to the character of the design. Customers want a feeling of confidence, strength and a sense of presence, yet the design should not be imposing. The design will compliment surrounding buildings by nature of the level of quality and material(s), but not'blend-in'. The metallic pyramidal metal roof over the main building will increase visibility and convey the friendly image. All four sides of the building have triangular high glass pods that project out from the brick to allow for natural daylight to enter the building which will enhance the interior atmosphere. The majority of the exterior walls wi11 be brick, earth tones, with clean detailing that will emphasize the sense of presence and strength. The brick gives the building a strong 'base' for the pyramid to stand on and will allow for the four glazed portions of the facade to extend out to the landscaped surroundings. The two story vestibule will create an inviting entry for the building. The building entry faces the intersection of West 78th Street and Kerber Drive and will visually link vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the building. At the street intersection, a monumental sign/fountain with seating will be built to 'tie' the new Bank to the street and downtown area. The fountain water will be light to create a dramatic backdrop for the raised letters of the sign. 2page 06March1995 Each element-the brick base, sloped roof the glass facade and the corner fountain/sign - stands as a distinct form,united into a strong,highly distinctive whole. MATERIALS: Building Facade - Brick with metal accent banding Sloping Roof - Metallic colored metal Flat Roof - EPDM Roof Structure - Steel bar Joist Floor Structure - Slab on Grade&Precast Concrete GENERAL INFORMATION: Main Level - 5860 Square Feet Second Level- 5184 Square Feet Lower Level - 1122 Square Feet(approx.) Roof Parapet- Parapet Height - 28'-0" Pyramid - 6:12 Pitch - Peak Height 46'-0"(approx.) BUILDING CODE INFORMATION: Building Type -VN Group Occupancy -B2 Occupant Load -121 (12,166SF/ 100) Please see the drawings for additional information. If you have any questions or need any other information,please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey J Pflipsen Vice President/Project Architect cc: Mr. Steve Kirchner,Richfield Bank&Trust � i i 'KING _ CB. ♦ 1 / ♦ 0♦ FLAG POLE(S) / i / / / 416. ' /I ►♦ �, A z c. a_ 44 1 & -- ♦ z4-4-- -- / 1 2 :9 04 18'-0" 28'-O' 18'-d' / �� / 4// /' /___ c(3/ �� / •w — - - I Qua '1 - 7 DEGREES / / / �~ 4 OFF NORTH _ r rill HIGH ti+ �' / �k, / / (A4141. Of/ / c;_4: ', y SCREEN _.-- '' `�,� / '-0' stop ,c 2 -/ 1 �1 Cr /,,.....---26 i/ •1 C8., j% -, -...40. j. .- --- hilli 1:;it / SIGN / A 1( / 1 4 \B i / s 1 �✓ V.` / / ..,( ., / 44 klif ,` ASp., (t / tieU ��. / 401. i ,.;t // Cl. / l‘ACt) \-.), 1..:5,. / REVISED ENTRANCE 4weix,,,,,,,_ / i N t-.PYU4. W [ 4H1 E M o-;,•-,• ° •p o cti oc _0 o -TQ D O A S�r ° rtQvu <Qo �- ^ mm n2Dp � Zxv O . s44T p c mQ aE ' x Eel! •-•<- rn _• 3N ° '° c T QnmQ mm 7Q -=..- v3 _m23 9 o o o 5•s ° o 0 c • QS'M 0T = -v5To . . H u,m3•o o • • to nQT79S a. goZ cgQ Cp 3 O u " SQCofUC•N ' . Hc � � o D p F. rTn T m N ° it oELQ_> > a mQQ 3 40 o MQ cQomm m SsD � Z T ". N fil Q �p. Tm gal Horommm m n• -0 c D -, o n a m n Q m d 2 o o ° 3mpQm 3N N , T H m oQ_o o m o 3 o c 2 _. TA F'D' oomTS Ioa3cEo0-ma 0 MQom o —„ w� m NnaEQQ� T cms3Qcm ° °p1Y < o ^ +,. M < ° ° o° ° QDDO Q p No a ° s < ^ m0 x � Q- 5 ,., U7 'mkE _'ate . _. n ? = o oo TT•° .. mQmCmCm n T. Q-m - o n __ EN2 =•p m T TA p fDwN � • 3 f - 0E Tc •T = A N 4, m -N O 3 " Oo •-"Z° 5• Q ;• t , od `E' T3- om pc ^.eQ --=m ,; toom o 0 0 3. om EM'momb ' ° C mm p 1,. ,.-; ¢,' F, (2,, �,� ° La‘..43 . N 0-0` 1.1513 o paNno Q_ x • N to pN Q D oE 3omD ] ryQc ' Fa O A C 7S- nV -« 9C m x S• 3,S =t ..c v Q 27 iSf.T°. M-N QnN3'ocaa _ Q ° . 0000 -- 0 ,.., 57 * 0 N SN -., c •v -— tj Fir ° < 3mo _ m s_ S t3 _.. mo -_ o :o o'Q c Q_ . ,o Q °.op , r ma.. ] a Q ocQH m .Q nn i 3 o ° o Q S x _ C _ C o m Q_ n c �N N S o. a< o m m<m ° m' ° L CO Q a� Qo.o a_ D . 3. pQ m W = QuG , -. ' om m 0 m Q t' 6 • -0m °= 4. ° 'v °aa * c5. T o _o o ., 0o , po �SZE o a 7 3 3' � ° A9Q < m' u5, c 'om momAm tQo pM.aoo �•mosmQ-p2N•-om m = £ o• Q 0-13.: m Q m D =3. 3. 3 No'er aQ _ ° oT;° —_,,Q 5'3 ro o Amm _p ° nS ° p 7 ° o ommto K _ Sm Q_m m L.?m H ° ' c o °. CL 3 H •< ° § 7.o °° ' x i',9 Zr 3 , ' m a D D,o, ° Om A < * 0 N aa- U 0 0 CS• � aniiS S O Q_ oOfl•p `p £ oaQ OQ F,- T n ...m U . '< O.'< _ j_re t0 .-- ...,. cla s. eL T`< r. 0._< W O N d 0 m E.g O - 7 C ..F"'-:-*" > > - - .4•0•44.10./.. -,-....14. ' it ' .• • �' �� {Vr . �sir '••r�}+ •• 4 '1p., I., ' • • . .IF.-4C'%Itj':-,Zrns.i.-aC,.•.•,,,t • `aim-:4i -1r•� . / '•.sr?,-: � • 1 t . ,, i$C � m I• III - 411 III [III: ''''L:.-.`-v ' .0,_A:',.` 11"---:'--- _ xi =i 4 •xi, jp,ii , ,•,,:...- i. Z _ o S\‘- a �. 7e 1 . 'IN 1 41 1 N i = e z rs' 1 - [I •CO lk ......i5-''''' . -..& .• ''Ilt I . TO�� n 5'W° t. ° 7 S _c S5 Sa ft x4 3 A 0 2 c 3° T_.,_ : ° 000 2 ,vF0 N.. f,7 Op' 9, S < ° _S o.• CD 7 d N NSHa c N a C a o-7 O 7 O n yO -- d Qo ° a k O U° 3 a S u o U o cr OAn' ° o p .c fl ''-pc o , —° ,m oNj v c D a.oo' m e m3 ; •3 < co o r, . o tA F o n o * 70 0 —A c o vn —0,v °_ ro°- .N m °,o ,Z�' N O,p �° w T 0O° O O 7 -., S tD _O F fp K G �^C a= C O p O S d O 7 'C w 7• • 0 ° W 7 < ° r9, ,a ° * 00 �•3 , nom* o1 • r„..o-°•= n 2_ Q<"oo' oZ omym�cCr° so5.9m' O so Fj S'H d m = tIfl_ j `•=, '.o ° a • ° y °x'� A eo o T 'n ' -• • m o •v f . 0 to•,. C o c0 vIIII � a-Z O aiiIi K el)3 n ^ u'Q i Poo °-3 o o as o �« o ° 3,� o Cl 9 Ln 07- f N -< v• ' N° ° �' ° _3 0 fo°-2 ° Oo '” o < A `' 3in° .W7aao ° ccC o 0 _�. 3.ca� o'era� ° a°Dw ° TToN. No(3 F o �H —m(03 F �aa _o m ^ A mO 5'T5 �� WCO n>> 3 m �< o- 0s;Q ? KIOn � ' ? Aa'° > >•o3 --ao 5'', � �' � H ° a mri-ii. 00° Aoo':^ � 11:(n _, ,°p 3 ° '^'S'w O_2« M na_,^. 0_•-..f_.1. 0 A w- 0 n W-, W• °-°,° N V p. _' oa� n' 0 ' o ° 300 °.0 - -,. -. �Q o ° £ � 3 5NQr, 0 = 0 " Tno � Q � `° � T° > > ° � 3 � �n SSO 3 � a_ `� M ;CT� « 3 = k a=6-`° c o ° 'rN o w -.o • w F 7 fC 4 a 0 A a- S O .b. .�° fD ° 3 j o ,' 7 7 7 3 R n�. o n o 0 0,5. ar (-)T.- o m F ?r 0-CD 0 3 0 3- C" - ° ry Q.9 3 0 F o O i ° c F a , ° n w p •.< `< 7 3 5' d— 3 N 3- .:13 iD g r -c .— ° 7r m ^ 7 ,_ a A n "d at ° ° -o 6 mss-- 3 F : 0 3a " o ff°.3 ° 20 ac—g A s°n « c 5- o TS.s7 A ° o ,! 5 o nn f0 ° c n —u • 3 n a -o.A A F R _° o j.6-.8 . • O o O ^ N A ' -1 ° S A O S T� a� S a o no m w, ; g ..< A' o c cn „ 5 _ o S o o a v-0. 5' - - o a - -- = o o = .a S a = .o o 9-Q F o'a'a o o.a O o o - - -2 m c m° . 1°11) •, ....., i - : • , 114 •. '''',7,.: i` ' A .` - At VI _414 3 ;: � •iw'lr '`... ; lir° 1 _ c �i N :4\ � T � T �_ Z it. _ 4 �, , (,.,,.,ii '` C co .. “, io 3on i v 4.,,. o in a.:-. ',C.::;: lik 11.4 et . zri c `• eic '17- - - i •••1 411.1( .. ; jim,,,,A �_'_. ^+l.•�.Y,..-s`m�i-s-ter,. +-� M , i,�J i A .30 • Emark CO + D a o0f' zoo T 3o v 4 4\-. a 3 •moa , _ • C a S T?Z F. 5- N m Ill c ° o e D 3 o ❑ 3 o 0 3 ° - .� o m003o5—orat,. -owT* o seA o3ro' frno❑ o-1 * Q D ,0 A ^ 3 n ° � o0--, "0 ❑ 3•°.3D oe0o ,o = roa 3 1=-0.0-< ', 0• e = i3 43 o 36 ,1• 22-.-4 =-0g .'" 5. Zfn ❑ o � mpr❑ 370 ):,. °='6,-....w0 ° o _n 0o7M70Sn ow ^ ❑- Se -, a. n 0 ° 0- p _ e 3VIi Nr e 0o pv aa ynpma r � r, Z ooa-m� ao ° z ain poe 3 •,,� 0. eo 2a o p •< O 0-0 0p• O 7 - O � 3 O n A ° . <. e Om T' _' f c -, T-, 0 0e - .00 R CO allo• o o > O o_ D 3O ; a ,oe - . m3O o ''` x ' o'< c � ,❑ v. ^'o ° ja' ^ - _ ` (D M a.0 • 3 0_ -: r - -•TC a" e �TC ❑ a • ° e � rt. � a -• _ IA + . p : 0,p —f -i: 0 0 a N= 2 .... §7_,--- ,.., 0, 0 ,,,___ aM o .. oa-0 - f- s,❑ 3 ro� -� -c • � , o O . ' -r = 30 -0 " • pG O e A o i < o •: —jT° ❑ —g00 0 A =--07--, Fr, ' ' p ° T ra e -� a £ o > > o - o N = ncO- -. naN ' ' ° n❑ Ne o roe❑ u, A • p e 7 o a,e ° p pn Tro o CDM A pa7 " D SN a 0 * 7 ❑ J o o n .0ua SN T� _ O �' ° 7•Q ❑ • m to � Nei, 0 ' N. p ,p Nv' . °O c 0 0 o ro 1 - . '•A no0 e D7 ' a, ❑_ ❑ S No 3 CI < e Ne O•- 7 T �' �' e3_ , o .e < -E6 ' ; ° a- 3 D ^ T0 W � c rD ' W ` (:) _ o°�H o' 6'-,1 o -aN-•ire 0 •< � '" AAe '" �m . o3•g ❑ - w<' ° p p en ❑ c O �❑ ea° 0. +0 j T-C O U ON• iO M a °❑T M . ❑ T 0- NA_ , �. Q3 � a < 7 7 o f ap fT asN n 3 p' a c.0 sof c ° ° 30 NAo p a 3 e 3•N n e ro ❑ ❑ 0 3.•e Oo z °° a a r, a. < c ocu 0 - 3 11. e a e ' Q N m0 ' < p T SO 0d Q'❑ oTT . co M _`° ao 3 _' ='5'o c7M oewira, no-.ae eNe = . Noie A • • - /� • • A o .F� ;di' aom -T- .4 T :44. i ' 72: .4 Ilitlitoi.„t. ..,,,tr- .., 4". . , . _ . ..... N •; A r. v ��' O K is i \_ • L____ ____.-J :,--_---: .._, . - , .. . . • k ,.. .. • . c -# o ° nD " Q o TTzo3 :� 3 ° o x A o o 0 % ' - 1 <'° ° 9'33 co m D. ��:�. • co 3 °. 0 3 a m a�-m m _ i — g9 Da ° ' < A D M I - no o-0 N ° x ao 3- > _.N E. F. 0 0_D c n o o m° FH oW �o o f n2- , 3'in Q. O E ° 9.n sc (, A-f Lo3 3A u ox ;•o A ? .. 0 0 3 0 0 0 - D 3 H co = 'o 3'0 o , D o s��?�� A � o A opo�' - co a = ca ao < 3'� o 0-o - o.7.'"crl M `0.0 N' 0o _ . a fl'•sNOy3 00 s 0 ° 'o a0--, a � Da40ofo "' , 3 -3 •<co ° a-. a o 3 3-3-m of n — Co —o•D `° 0v .rte o o •0 3 0 0 n < 0 -'�9 a.0 rr., c S'0 cp ° O n ° 3 ,!s --• —p . 3 p r n,NO° gt a 3_ m39 ° m en —oo2a0ov `.. o0c 0 � 00 f � f ° m n _. °Fli N - o c- r `o a o ° f t.,,,..< a ° s0 m 3 � „0;; a�C 7' T A M•�:a Q< D 0_ c 0 ° 3 S A 3 (D K`0•° faD w n ° N ° N 0 ° H ° A. m ^ o co 0 ,,Cl-0' n a o `c 0 D n 0 0 S 3 3 r• ,.moo �7 D 0 ^.cp �° > > 0 3•aTa_a�a `� a o 0 m H° A y'a 3 So ,�•aw Q 73 m< 3'F co A Q -o '" ° o a a, N•0 o_0 0 0 3.o_ a 0 =' o 0 � o c" 0'_ a�p ° C' .0 'C iD '< 0 j 0 C t� p x', O O t'p 5. O o n °+,o a j• •<3 ° a 3 ° Q f_o 0° a« c "' a' co _ °-A° - ° E 37 o_ N•� ° o o ce a 0 a o a 0 n 0 -rt.< 0 rD 'o 0- v o zoo uoF -- f CD '< �a3 � ; a~ 7'" nM ..<o o z..7.,.. 3 A 0 an)00 'n _ °com'4ioc ° Vic° <� ofllao0000 £ oco_NT ' a 0< s° °.3 . 0o _ a 0 0 c0 ° _ O`3 = o s 7 w» _ 3'.r' -. a< f'p ° o 3 /D o CD 0-r CD o >n • ,moi' 0 a3N•a, O a°s3 ° a C 'o '.❑9. ° aS° 0�` aA A A C 3 A ' m [D a 0 u-, N• o o° o o•�o �� _0 3 M as o — 0_0<rD �'c" M. ?.a o ' ° N m m 'a 6 a ° ' o° co 3 ° o �_ O f m O a~ ° 0 v 3 0 o T� -. 0 '" 3 0 3.a 0 `� a f a° ° °a 0 �a a n 0 ° A� ' _ f 1 m' c° 0 ' ° g ' tJ s c 3 O N °oc M —Q , el M -•° ° r) 0'Cn° 3'm , o o " 3 m N o S3 _•-0�c p a Q•< 0-p C'a' ° o•0 c ° N 3�•3p-co f p j �.°' 3.3. a° Fp < a_-. '2 ° cs a� N w° M 3•�''a? c ro m m° 0a� 3'O j F r 9 aN U -• a a- c0 0 m M a3' v i;..:"vL•' • .t. • o c n .1118N '..<rr: -_;• 1'l. ,1 r - "eif-c G.K 14i Y. ",' i.••i s C. ms's- \ / ,. _ /_. 4. ,,41443,ilt:li.. q,.._2_-_ joIllii‘. I • n H Vi:::.- . A D_ ,_ o ., r�• 7C ( A __ a O S ,. v v C+ ..e 4. o R1 1w ,_ . I • v.,;.-",-.:,"% rn N f •:74',.- T ---- ___-._ _ t �•.......Imrwyy /JY-~- C.) * _."' , .... dIOF , 1":i: ^ -•^ 6nno' Zf 'N a me'an-0 O ^ 3 n /"1 m 3 n 0. O.• 5 n p A "y L ° S 3 n n o 0 o M o o- L .< 3 o ' Z e " -.•-. noN —�- 3-- 0 0_0 0_9 ;=oN Q _a 9n F O p` -+ o � �,c aiv _ pOrap � -•S-4 rx, 3 3 9 O_ _V•AS• , I .... s•-( . O ' a7Se U u,° NOo3e03N70atQM3 Xy oa,rUt.2 ° o3 . < nap mea° . ef. g 0 • 0 n . e n ° wn.• = ° cQ T 0 • s s'P D ;0-5. to c F p-, -< A r.. n. S. C _.,p, ..3 w C nT - •- 1eS'° Ta,o ^ e 0- A • 7 Sa p O A- 3O .D Aon O -I o ` ° _ O r; 1. Cm a s(0 V� Oo 3 TNL. ° I 0- a > O -, T Q m > > ^ e ` Z S OcOZ .° NOSOD 7 OO �•A <aT 3 • F °? n . - , n j , • st 3 _ A - 0 ° '- Cp O -, Q•°'a - O ° 7 _ O f 0-aA1 n• STA o ,O LA SNH -.° , —A b aY 7t ° V p o m b 0oAOw F•a3O II _ 3 "1 ° 'o 3 ° � ° ,p 0 0 Fri IT f +•aav ° 3 „, c . a -oA nn , ° vr " na� �”< NS < AO - O e ec n O _ 3' No aa r- o . < N ^ V m 7 — 0 vnGC eaya QNON. N„ w C. j . 07 Q ; 13 ell .n ' � 5'mOa N O oC ° ° Wm O + O_- On ° C _ O 0 n ciQc OA p ,ei O 0 p _ p 7 - -. M - n7 . ° N.a - d _. ' Y•-M •° w ' 3 = ' Q 7 O O ' ` Oa 4`' p e 0 0 a n A _ C. j 3 -0 -N O •o a` p F p . aON . O M p a° O 0 p b a v a ... n j _ °° ^ 910 ,r° ^ .17-9 ,1 ,, '" -0na - o• ° 3 a o p ' 4 a 0 g 0-. n < Ho e3 ••' no e TN = ? ' o a 7•' .ii 7 3a° sA a' n Na `, `� C-° ; ' C rir c3` nnatC 0I -. nc ' w O fl a-,-7"w'p s n . n p• � 5 s ° a Qi u2 c < o Q -9 p OA ° aawa ..°ay :,: o 0 o v 0_rt. S•> > ac, m _ ; 3--° F o•3 a ,ao p ° ct, eT tn, ip C ao •3 oC cc a 00•f 7 a0 n • OiO C -. DDvNOeos ° 3 + o ° p_ S cA £ CO° i ° O O OS _ �. 7`' e ' ' ' sp + Y •M ' s-s c CO v. n'rA O,Z •� CP. ° Rn ' O H•n Ad O 3Ce pOw ° „.7 _� a o D Mar00- mN O ' o,. ar-0 0 ,,,° O 3 ' 2o n ' ” oa ° ° eoo 3' aoo� T ° 3woa' ' o p ion x•f -Ie - A ° o oo n,rro ro ct •jr it.."4. / 611 ;ZZ:%7 l� ,.11.1/4.:.1.....t‘ \f'i11 / '°� • ) 71)•» / / ••V. C;M.11 ,man-plet ,��:itir,l; / [ ) i I •,% •,yillier 11)'7%; j-ime; ; IS\ ii.1----, 4 I \' ' :------ o ; c 1/ — 7o • 0 17 aD ` 9 D Z Zz 17 T c Z ~ GI T y 1,1 / IR Z 1,1 :=4.111 ....-.-.73 - � Dom 1- - , . tiro/1111%e �3-e.►� � .! lik 12118v61,',1„`�l�lliq/‘1 04i,� 1;1,��►P s �I�� L A� " g.44. 2 :iii .:, •IV/ g g i,vromV ---;-!.- 4Zilial,,,ilr.41' o♦ offs NOTICE OF PUBLIC !• g�� 37.' •'tttii �A' = HEARING — .7• ` _ ii„f��l �� el,. a o, .::fi��.�t (1�. RK I��\ �a�A1tr Irrn� PLANNING COMMISSION ..„:.......4.11 yyyy '"""`wiz""=s- J 1 �� Wy :.I�.FJ.I..V� .n. R.r. MEETING .� OCATI �. iiia'\ ��1111111111_ Wednesday, APRIL 5, 1995 , ilbjiLdi �" '”""��' � o at 7:00 p.m. g,.; City Hall Council Chambers ��- 690 Coulter Drive ® ilk lir iiimb„! 4`' % �ii Al NIGMM�� ✓,' Project: Richfield Bank & Trust ~ -' 4 Developer: Richfield State Agency '1� � PA's ,* I►t�;,e:�: .c( ..11t�z , ---v:."11,!, vw 1G.►, 4107.. )0/ cwiLocation: SW Corner of West 78th '3 *`' ' '=`4 -f:��1►�?I r� ...Tr=i LAKE SUSAN /1 nwZ..., Street and Kerber Blvd. �� f _ •'�v moi!"=� t'�:a =��c° Fr/ Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a site plan review for a two story building (Richfield Bank and Trust) with a total of 12,166 square feet on property zoned PUD and located at the southwest corner of West 78th Street and Kerber Boulevard, Lot 1, Block 3, Burdick Park Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 23, 1995. * The Park and Recreation Commission will review this item at their meeting on Tuesday, March 28, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A i -03 03/06/95 10:42 COMMONWEALTH LAT 3 8665046 NO.885 P002 2S5 Park Square Court 400 Sibley Street St. Paul, MN 55101 612-227$571 • Fax:612-227-1708 Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company March 6, 1995 Mr. Jan Susee Susee & Lee, Ltd. Richfield Bank Bldg. Suite 620 6625 Lyndale Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 RE: 36343C Abstractor's Certificate Dear Mr. Susee: Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company does hereby certify that as of March 3, 1995, a search of the public tax records in and for Carver County, Minnesota, discloses the names and address of the property owners within 500 feet of Lot 1, Block 3, Burdick Park Addition. Also enclosed for your convenience is our memo invoice detailing our costs. Respectfully, COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE E COMPANY Robert A. Anderson Licensed Abstracter This report cites matters appearing in the public records of Carver County, Minnesota, and is not to be construed as an opinion of title. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company disclaims any liability for errors or omissions. Enclosure 41 ROUEUICS ,• A Mance Group IioldinEs Company 03/06/95 10:43 COMMONWEALTH L&T -* 8665046 NO.885 P004 File No. 36343C Exhibit A Parcel No. Taxpayer/ Legal Address Description 25.4510010 Market Square Assoc Plat 25451 Market Square Ltd. Partnership Lot 1, Block I 200 Hwy 13 West Burnsville, MN 55337 25.4510020 Chanhassen H Plat 25451 Market Square 690 Co rive Lot 2, Block 1 P . x 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 25.4510030 Chanhassen HRA . Nat 25451 Market Square 690 CoulterDrive' Lot 3, Block 1 P.O.H6z 147 ,Chanhassen, MN 55317 25.4510040 Market Square Assts II LLC Plat 25451 Market Square 470 78th St. West Lot 4, BIock 1 P.O. Box 250 Chanhassen, MN 55317 25.4490010 Wendy's International, Inc. Plat 25449 Market Square P.O. Box 256 Second Addition Dublin, OH 43017 Lot 1, Block I 25,8920010 West One Properties Plat 25892 West One Addition 17001 Stodola Road Lot I, Block 1 Minnetonka, MN 55345 25.1500090 B. C. Burdick Plat 25150 Burdick Park 684 Excelsior Boulevard Addition Excelsior, MN 55331 Lot 2, Block 3 25.8790040 T.F. James Company Nat 25879 West Village 6640 Shady Oak Road Heights 2nd Addition Suite 500 Lot 4, Block 1 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 25.1840010 Dayton Hudson Corp. T-862 Plat 25184 Chanhassen Retail 777 Nicollet Mall Addition Minneapolis, MN 55402 Lot I, Block I -CONTINUED- 03/06/95 10:43 COMMONWEALTH L&T 8665046 NO.885 P005 Page 2 Parcel No. Taxpayer/ Legal Address Description 25.184.0020 Chanhassen HRA Plat 25184 Chanhassen Retail 690 Coulter Drive Addition P.O. Box 147 Oudot A Chanhassen, MN 55317 25.7750010 City of Chanhassen Plat 25775 Schneider Park 690 Coulter Drive Lot 1, Block 1 P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 25.7750020 City of Chanhassen Plat 25775 Schneider Park 690 Coulter Drive Lot 2, Block 1 P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 25.7750030 Mithun Enterprises, Inc. Plat 25775 Schneider Park 900 Wayzata Boulevard E. Lot 1, Block 2 Wayzata, MN 55391 2.5.7750040 Stara Bank of Chanhassen Plat 25775 Schneider Park 680 78th St. West Lot 2, Block 2 Chanhassen, MN 55317 25.7750050 State Bank of Chanhassen Plat 25775 Schneider Park 680 78th St. West Lot 3, Block 2 Chanhassen, MN 55317 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 4/5/95 CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 4/24/95 -...1-> r CASE #: 95-5 Site Plan STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 27,750 square foot office/warehouse located on Lot 4, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition. Z Q LOCATION: West of Audubon Road north of Lake Drive West 0 APPLICANT: Benson-Orth Associates Power Systems IL 14001 Ridgedale Drive #320 14650 Martin Drive Q Minneapolis, MN 55305 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 545-8826 937-1100 PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development, PUD (Industrial/Office) ACREAGE: 2.68 acres (116,910 sq. ft.) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - IOP, railroad, vacant S - PUD, Nation Weather Service E - PUD, Jehovah Witness W - PUD, vacant Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to site. C) W PHYSICAL CHARACTER The site is being prepared for development as part of the Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition. There are no significant environmental features on this lot. The Twin Cities and Western railroad line abuts this property to the north. Additional vacant office/industrial lots abut the property to the east and west. A NSP electric transmission line runs along the north boundary line of this property. • 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial 4.0111C ANN . 1 ..,467iii A il ..' V ,,, ..,. . . , .............7 „, ,. ,......... i , z.....i.,, __. _......._ = 16 1...., * - /nil ill 1 44 EANNpA,771 'alri Wit 11101111.--A1111 I S T A --AMWAY '• a C . 1 4- 4. 01)LEVA'. 02140 STREIT C 11 LiI , re --' Wilk i \117W, ik 1 rotebie- 11110c23 i 11111Awr-•••••••- Irpv. 1110111-11 7---- 2 --- P4 -qu 4".3,111alk-1F4.-, -----*" 01140,"lt Iiii: 7' • CATI .4411" Min hIllhame Illallgiv.I''' -- -- ..., I......L...a s.... it .--4, ...\....,NNH....... .... 1 I Tr: MO$1.14.44 '' 1 441b-4.15.4j;at- ....,,swbv.I.1 41.-4r, ' it" isnistro-- k a -a..%.,,,stinen..6.,...-,• LMAN I ' 1 I V• rt. , t A P P°it • $. '' 2.-,_•NA i I 0 0 <V t•- 110'"Ng*Sr lb. '`.• "".7.„10 I I S 700-1 'ARK ? . . 0 el /....• 1 • VS.. 0 .R c - 0 0 0 0 ilt.!.%oakalC•ed o ... r: \ in ••• •• A .. ,.. 171 0 A. ••• .,, Is NI 5 9 00- Oka= •.4 1Sn* 6300 0.11.' 10111 /air / I Illk -•-- 0 W 0 LI) all 0 % ..... 9 C C= -. LV • ' OF N....? 9100 ASSEN 9200 E MAP 9 300 •,, / N's - VI / 9400 '3% (N.. \ • -.'.----- ....1 9500 %/71 z 0 it, • 9600 ° D , 0 . 9 TOO Jr' ---• < N/ A111111111111110111r. 9800 ,----_-' 44.; .0°- 9900 •2' v. 1 • I 0000 . -7 11111I‘ 1 .0100 0200 ma' '-r• -ENGINEERING DEPT. — . . -..;., ,..... I0.5o0 I .,4.....1-';‘," SED JAN, 1995 *400 i \ I I I 0500 / , I OSM ..irl, 1 Power Systems Site Plan April 5, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a 27,750 square foot office/warehouse building (7,432.5 sq. ft. office and 20, 317.5 sq. ft. warehouse) on Lot 4, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition. In addition, there is a potential area for a 10,000 square foot expansion on the west side of the structure. This expansion is not being evaluated as part of this site plan review. The PUD for the Chanhassen Business Center has established development standards which govern the development of this site including building uses, building sizes, building materials, setbacks, landscaping, signage and lighting standards. The proposed development is within the parameters established for building size, usage, and lot coverage. However, with the possible expansion of the building, this site would exceed the estimated building size established as part of the plat. Staff will maintain a record of the building sizes and uses within this phase of the development and make sure that, overall, the square footages are not exceeded. This site is approximately 10 feet lower than Audubon Road. There are two intervening lots between this property and the road. The main floor elevation is approximately two feet above the street elevation immediately to the south and approximately five feet lower than Lake Drive West elevation south of the project. The site slopes from south to north with a low elevation of 936 feet and a high elevation of 942 feet. The high point on the site will be the finished main floor elevation at 943 feet. The loading area ramp is four feet lower than the main floor elevation. The applicant has revised the architecture of the building since the plans were originally submitted to staff to improve the architectural details. Specifically, the applicant has recessed the entryway of the building and included an arched detail, revised the concrete panel design to incorporate a smooth concrete surface for the building band, and increased site landscaping to help break up the large expanses of walls. Metal siding has been used to screen the roof mounted HVAC equipment. The building is constructed of uniform rib precast concrete panels painted white. The ribs are relieved by a two foot wide smooth blue (painted) band around the building approximately three feet below the roof and a one foot wide smooth concrete band below the roof flashing. Staff has inspected many industrial buildings built in Chanhassen to ascertain methods of improving building facades. The proposed building will be very similar in appearance to the McGlynn's expansion with ribbed precast concrete panels broken by a smooth concrete strip near the top. The white building color will be very similar to the finished elevations of United Mailing, Victory Envelope, and Empak. However, this project has introduced a second color element, blue, into the building as well as incorporated a light grey arched and recessed entryway treatment at the front of the structure. Staff believes that this Power Systems Site Plan April 5, 1995 Page 3 development meets the intent of the Chanhassen Business Center PUD as far as building material and design. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions contained in this report. The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the design guidelines established as part of the Chanhassen Business Center PUD, and the site plan review requirements. The site has few existing natural amenities due to previous development in the area. The site design is compatible and harmonious with approved industrial developments throughout the city. BACKGROUND On January 13, 1992, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for the Chanhassen Business Center as shown on the attached site plan. The PUD was amended in February 1993 to allow for a church as a permitted use. The Chanhassen Business Center is an industrial/office park on 93.7 acres. The original plat consisted of 12 lots and 2 outlots. The ultimate development for this proposal was to have a total of 700,000 square feet of building area with a mix of 20% office, 25% industrial and 55% warehouse. The first phase of final plat approval included two lots. The National Weather Service (NWS) was built on Lot 1, Block 2 and the Jehovah Witness Church was built on Lot 1, Block 1. One of the original conditions of the PUD was that the perimeter landscaping was to be installed as well as the trail. Due to the extensive costs of grading and utility extension, the developers sought relief from this requirement. When the first two uses were approved, the perimeter landscaping was required for these two uses only. The Jehovah Witness has completed their perimeter landscaping. The NWS building has posted surety for the completion of perimeter landscaping this spring. Staff will be adding a condition on the 2nd Addition that all required perimeter landscaping be completed with this phase. This landscaping will be consistent with the approved landscaping plan for the original PUD. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The development standards will remain the same as previously approved with the PUD. a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial/office park. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for Power Systems Site Plan April 5, 1995 Page 4 development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. 1. Light Industrial. The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, or testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. 2. Warehousing. Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property. 3. Office. Professional and business office, non-retail activity. FINDING: The proposed uses are consistent with the parameters established as part of the PUD. c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and parking setbacks. The landscape buffer on Audubon Road is 50 feet, south of Lake Drive and 100 feet along the southern property line. The PUD zone requires a building to be setback 50 feet from the required landscape buffer and public right-of-ways. There is no minimum requirement for setbacks on interior lot lines. The following setbacks shall apply from the right-of-way: Building Parking Required 25' 15' Provided 90' 15' FINDING: The proposed development meets or exceeds the minimum setbacks established as part of the PUD. Power Systems Site Plan April 5, 1995 Page 5 d. Development Standards Tabulation Box Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition CBC Lot Size - Bldg Bldg Sq. Building Coverage Impervious PUD Acres Ht. (ft.) Ft. Surface Proposed 2.68 40 34,000 29% 76% Lot 4 Power 2.68 21.3 27,750 23.7% plus 8% 50.1% plus Systems plus 10% Lot 4 10,000 The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for office and industrial uses. Parking Standards: Office - 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet; Warehouse - 1 space per 1,000 for first 10,000 square feet, then 1 space per 2,000 square feet. The required parking is 49 spaces. The applicant has provided 46 spaces. An additional three spaces must be provided. Building Square Footage Breakdown for entire development Office 20% 120,700 sq. ft. Manufacturing 25% 150,875 sq. ft. Warehouse 54.09% 326,425 sq. ft. Church 0.91% 5,500 sq. ft. Total 100% 603,500 sq. ft. FINDING: The proposed development meets the development standards established as part of the PUD. The required parking is 49 spaces. The applicant has provided 46 spaces. An additional three spaces must be provided. e. Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. Power Systems Site Plan April 5, 1995 Page 6 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block. 3. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. 4. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 5. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. 6. Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components or, as trim or as HVAC screen. 7. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 8. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. 9. The use of large unadorned, prestressed concrete panels and concrete block shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 10. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures for all developments in the Business Center. FINDING: The applicant has revised the architecture of the building since the plans originally submitted to staff to improve the architectural details. Specifically, the applicant has recessed the entryway of the building and included an arched detail, revised the concrete panel design to incorporate a smooth concrete surface for the building band, and increased site landscaping to help break up the large expanses of walls. Metal siding has been used to screen the roof mounted HVAC equipment. The building is constructed of uniform rib precast concrete panels painted white. The ribs are relieved by a two foot wide smooth blue (painted) band around the building approximately three feet below the roof and a one foot wide smooth concrete band below the roof flashing. f. Site Landscaping and Screening 1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I area to be installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping being required ahead of individual site plan approvals but we believe the Power Systems Site Plan April 5, 1995 Page 7 buffer yard and plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 2. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 3. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan review. All approved outdoor storage must be screened with masonry fences and/or landscaping. 3. The master landscape plan for the CBC PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process. 4. Undulating or angular berms 3' to 4' in height, south of Lake Drive along Audubon Road shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of Phase I grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed incrementally, but it shall be required where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed appropriate. FINDING: The applicant has prepared an extensive landscaping plan for the development. Loading dock screening is being provided through the installation of blackhills spruce, arborvitae, and deciduous trees. Staff is recommending revisions to the landscaping plan to bring the parking lot landscaping up to city standards as well as the placement of additional trees on the north side of the building to provide additional relief to the building. g. Signage 1. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. 2. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. All signs require a separate permit. Power Systems Site Plan April 5, 1995 Page 8 3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. 4. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. FINDINGS: The applicant has not provided details for a monument sign for this parcel. Any signage would need to comply with city code as well as with the requirements of this PUD. The applicant has shown a wall sign on the building. However, there is insufficient detail to review the sign for compliance with city ordinance. Staff has calculated the wall area at 3,370 feet. The sign ordinance permits up to five percent of the wall area in signage or approximately 168 square feet. h. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. 2. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. 3 Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. 4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. FINDING: The applicant has not provided lighting details or calculations for this development. However, city ordinance and the PUD standards provide sufficient control to assure compliance to an established standard. ACCESS The preliminary plat of Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition recently received preliminary plat approval and is now in the process of being final platted. This site is being developed in conjunction with the overall plat improvements. Access to this site is from proposed Commerce Drive. Staff suggests an additional driveway access point should be included somewhere halfway in the front parking lot to provide better circulation and to separate the truck loading area from the employee or visitor parking areas in front. The site plan differs slightly from the grading, drainage and utility plans with respect to the curb cut and parking island configuration. The site plan shows an island on the south side of Power Systems Site Plan April 5, 1995 Page 9 the parking lot adjacent to Commerce Drive whereas the grading and drainage plan does not. This same location is where staff believes another curb cut should be utilized out to Commerce Drive. The site plan also shows a different driveway access from the cul-de-sac than the grading and drainage plan. Staff recommends using driveway configurations shown on the grading and drainage plans with a slight modification. The driveway curb cut should be constructed in accordance with the City's Industrial Driveway Detail Plate No. 5207 (Attachment 1). In reviewing the pavement sections in the parking and loading dock areas, staff suggests to the applicant that they increase the loading dock pavement section to a minimum of 12 inches of Class V for the additional support needed to accommodate truck traffic. GRADING & DRAINAGE This site is proposed to be rough graded in conjunction with the other public improvements the developer will be installing as part of Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition. Only finish grading is anticipated for the parking lots. The drainage plan is in accordance with the overall master stormwater drainage plan to be approved with the Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition construction drawings. The stormwater will be conveyed via a storm sewer drainage system at the regional pretreatment pond located within the development. Staff will require that the applicant's engineer supply the City with storm drainage calculations for a 10- year storm event to verify pipe capacities and catch basin locations on the site. UTILITIES In conjunction with the platting of Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, sewer and water improvements will be extended along Commerce Drive to service the site. EROSION CONTROL The grading plan indicates erosion control measures being incorporated around the perimeter of the site. Staff also recommends that a rock construction entrance be utilized at all access points to the site. MISCELLANEOUS The applicant should be aware that no construction activities may commence on the site until the final plat has been recorded and the development contract executed by the developer of Chanhassen Business Center. Interim access to the site may be from existing Lake Drive West. The driveway must meet the City Fire Marshal's recommendation for ingress and egress at all times. Power Systems Site Plan April 5, 1995 Page 10 LANDSCAPING The applicant has prepared an extensive landscaping plan for the development. Loading dock screening is being provided through the installation of blackhills spruce and arborvitae. The applicant has revised the landscaping plan from the original submittal to incorporate the placement of additional trees on the north and west sides of the building to provide relief to the building. The parking lot area requires a minimum of 10 canopy trees. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the landscaping plan to incorporate an overstory tree from the "Approve Tree List" specified as suitable for boulevard and parking lots within each of the parking lot peninsulas and at the corners of the parking lot. Staff also recommends that two more hackberries be planted in the northeast corner of the site maintaining the spacing established by the four hackberries already shown. In addition, these trees should be located between the gas easement and drainage and utility easement located to the north of the building. The applicant's landscaping plan proposes the following distribution of trees: primary - 30% (16), secondary - 15% (8), conifers - 36% (19), and ornamentals 19% (10). This represents a good mix of tree species and provides sufficient variety to make an intensifying and aesthetically pleasing reforestation of the site. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE The applicant has not provided lighting details or calculations for this development. However, city ordinance and the PUD standards provide sufficient control to assure compliance to an established standard. The applicant has not provided details for a monument sign for this parcel. Any signage would need to comply with city code as well as with the requirements of this PUD. The applicant has shown a wall sign on the building. The sign will be blue, individual letters. However, there is insufficient detail to review the sign for compliance with city ordinance. Staff has calculated the wall area at 3,370 feet. The sign ordinance permits up to five percent of the wall area in signage or approximately 168 square feet. A separate permit will be required for signage. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; Power Systems Site Plan April 5, 1995 Page 11 (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the design guidelines established as part of the Chanhassen Business Center PUD, and the site plan review requirements. The site has few existing natural amenities due to previous development in the area. The site design is compatible and harmonious with the approved developments in industrial developments throughout the city. Power Systems Site Plan April 5, 1995 Page 12 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve Site Plan 95-5 for a 27,750 square foot office/warehouse building on Lot 4, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Add one additional fire hydrant on the island just south of the main entrance; 2. Indicate location of P.I.V. (Post Indicator Value); 3. The Fire Department fire sprinkler connection shall be on the south side of the building. 4. The applicant shall incorporate an additional curb cut in the front side of the building for the visitor parking area off of Commerce Drive. 5. The site plan shall be revised to be compatible with or similar to the grading and drainage plan with regards to parking stalls, islands, and driveway access points. 6. Staff suggests increasing the pavement section for the loading dock to a minimum of 12 inches of modified Class V and 4 inches of bituminous. 7. All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Design Detail (Plate No. 5207 - attached). 8. No building permits or grading may commence on the site until after the final plat has been approved and recorded and the developer of Chanhassen Business Center has executed the development contract. 9. Temporary access to the site prior to the street being constructed may be permitted as long as the City Fire Marshal's conditions and concerns are fully met. 10. The applicant shall pay full park fees as specified by city ordinance. There are no trail fees required of this project. 11. The applicant shall revise the parking lot plans to provide a minimum of 49 parking spaces. 12. Revise the landscaping plan to incorporate an overstory tree from the "Approve Tree List" specified as suitable for boulevard and parking lots within each of the parking lot Power Systems Site Plan April 5, 1995 Page 13 peninsulas and at the corners of the parking lot. Staff also recommends that two more hackberries be planted in the northeast corner of the site maintaining the spacing established by the four hackberries already shown. In addition, these trees shall be located between the gas easement and drainage and utility easement located to the north of the building. 13. A separate permit will be required for signage. 14. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. 15. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. 16 Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. 17. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 18. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. 19. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. All signs require a separate permit. 20. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Tree Guide, from A Guide to Field Identification: Trees of North America, C. Frank Brockman, Western Publishing Company, Inc., 1986 3. Chanhassen Business Center Preliminary Plat 4. Industrial Driveway, Plate No. 5207, dated 2-91 5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 6. Site plan dated March 6, 1995 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: BENSON-ORTH ASSOCIATES OWNER: POWER SYSTEMS ADDRESS: 14001 RIDGEDALE DR #320 ADDRESS: 14650 MARTIN DRIVE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55305 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 TELEPHONE (Day time) 545-8826 TELEPHONE: 937-1100 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review ✓ Notification Signs c(3 t c' 9. x Site Plan Review = " - Z`T ' . (JD X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost** $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP I $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 7 77,5� • A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. - On File With Kate Ranenson, Planning Director Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81h" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME POWER SYSTEMS LOCATION COMMERCE DRIVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 4 , BLOCK 1 . CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, 2nd ADDITION PRESENT ZONING PUD IOP REQUESTED ZONING SAME AS PRESENT PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION VACANT REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL REASON FOR THIS REQUEST SITE PLAN/BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document r turned to City Hall Records. 3/6/95 SigpIture o =•plicant Date KC- 3/9/95 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. 1 • i .:7_ _ _ • � 000 ' IN • �l,<<,l,i1 `h n r--- z Ili • in u ,000 IScR1 1 A I 0 At 1 41 I • , Al. ' IN - i ( I :. IIItllll ! lii1I111 1 1 1 1 t r _ : , _ . , . i t , . . . - a_ wp iilli _ i.�;..11 TY ir; 101-„ .74,4, i ! , • i•-1 zi i! 4,..) or w� �� ►'� IOW A� I iIII ii hiltgigkeropmenIrmo fl'jfl 'j 11.± 1 __ I I i !ii ) 11114 i = 11€1 • \*.......... ..._..........'....."/ , 1 t � t� � i j i ; , it iv �r cp�r'' l . i ligil . � ail ),t jog' �._.,i d � t = i ` � tt0 401 E' s z ='", 11 . ' I � ;: 1 , f. ti'1 Ij i 1 O t 115:,I' 11 I ,x111 ra.�'_'" pill . I 1 g :-I 1 t4 `1.n a a � 4fa I. 1¢ I t �. ' lii,lf Of ; tiiqh Is. " i 1 t 1_ 0*Irz- 4 , q i '11 i itil:ii I. ' ,C.. 41 . -11-4** pi — s CO. 4. !li ° 1-.1 • yill►,'bili I;r!�t I • B 'iEP: II J iiiill iii : i 1 it 11 i I i .wo.e...n.r S�, BERNARD HERMAN _ :Ti...:. -•-•__ IF:: ` `�`t�`t"�� ARCHITECTS, INC.I POWER SYSTEMS �._ wTi S ®®®W,....."."".'":::•-e= Cw,MAf.tr.YrEfO7A -••••-••_r elm rt. r.wn i • i I i = zg ! ! ® • • i r _t x at. W i _.-0 • 4-.f'-, '� _ n = ♦ w , 3 II o a 1 —.� _ // Z e'JA ED 1. Z f s`_ 2 . II I _ I Eli i i'. t --4› i-.-o I,i it L -- - i , '-O - � I -.- e I,�; S I1 a • I i ��!�Ill - dr ti i i3 t iiii ---0 ' ,. -0 Ka i p{ =4 CT...zln � •® •® i_ iJ -•-0 ,'mo_ . 3ce - ��i � e - ; ......___ ------ , , . _ 3 z __ _.:„..„.. $0 r ,s .,.IIT _- - -= =__ = ` =_- - 4 1 i Rill 1111111 11,i i : c 1 t i 1 1 -tit— I IIJJ '11 •1 ; •0 1 y 1 ammo n....w BERNARD HERMAN D ��,` ARCHITECTS, INC.I POWER SYSTEMS =_�:.r. --- �t. . � A I®®®..,•aw.r.•w•.•.._w•• Cww,•�f�[w,rrxesOi• r.w.• SJ01! • .n. r •••••••-13:13 bell NCI_ • --.- - --- --__.,-..._...._.__ 7, i m r A' ^w•- -0 N 0 N -❑ to N • ❑ O O'❑ O 3 �,? Z rn 3 ls \ • 3 ri p3 n 3 N F e O _ _ n rp (D a° n 0 3- 0 < m° _•3 E. E A T* --o(a o N—o Tg ❑ � E Fo w ° ," ^ 3 a 03 ❑ K Z �-•m 3 Q T 3 0 ❑ f — p 3 . ❑ Z n < a - a r`o o T v °. _ ° O• E o-o 5 N•0 ° O ='a • A"O =co•0 ; D 0 3 n o ° ,5 • n 3 .• { fl ° •< 0_ -7 NN o 3-• (D ❑ � 7 _ ❑ (D. g-0 r$ mn3p_ 3-^•;•noroo3 9 =TE a5•❑ ^ p n' 0 _ 2 (' ZO0 9 ,. �''A _ N c-° •,:i. R O , 3 o ro N _ N 7 -0 1 3 O '•p 0 rr rD O ' ❑ 3 p O — 0 3 ^ --1 p a 'r c ❑ 3 ❑ c • -G - O. !0 3 E ci,_'a :-- = 3 p E w c O c .. fD p (D 3 H O_a n• p —N N N ❑_7. ❑ 30 a°7O (C 3 3• 3 " 'Q F n T 0 - C (D 7 a-< A • (Q Q F T O S�•2- O n 3 _..0. C eQ n •.t .,. p (o A N O3o a'r — m 3 3 ^� 3 p O < O a C n N 3 v a.° aro m' xi • 3 a n -3 p E _ 3 s .- C N of a ❑ W •; 'c roo � - C • m N • - a = 0 fp 0 a a n 0-'0 v o' -0 a-0-O ❑_-. _ it r`" 3 3 ❑ ° N ' Ea ' n ° 0 c< =n ^ p.(a a -J E n o (D 3-O ° 3 0 ^ a O r0 3 - m O rD O; cog- N p O N 3-' ••' L`_'U O O c ❑ O O ❑_3 'o ❑v. 6•C ro �p ❑ to O Oto ❑ A j to N❑ a' ^ d '� -- k y13 '4 3 0 0 0 II.'31 'i0 O -•• SO0 Q' tD 'c°�' j ~ � 0 - 2 ; a< f•43 =•27 7 n• ?.' A 3 a'c-� ❑:c 0' S fo 7.3 A 0 M Cr, OM l❑ o n. -0 - et, _. fp 3 � n � n (D Q N'O ° '�` A'O fl 3 E a O A n 'c-7• in❑ ? c j•-- =•-oh6 3 ❑ — •o O ❑ �• R 3 ❑ n O A_.3 3 O ❑ O f'p 3 O rp O N A 0 M O O 13- o ^ C.C c to rp�•O 3 rp 1 a ST❑ A E tQ ° fo N 7 3 S. 3 O ro Cr A Q(D• 0.3•rp p 7 .O_3 Cr❑. a- O ^ O• - 0 3 O F. P O O n a j 3 • ' 0 a H W n ❑ c J f'p T° A (( '< ry p ° �<3 ° ❑ m N3 n'SJ N aam•wn c' e° 00 -1 E A�- n 3 ❑ �3 a n Na 3 ir0 O p ❑ o a❑ ❑ �. E o❑ a"€.3 N Q j� o '^ 0 aO ° ❑ 2.co • a t❑ ^ O O'er 3 a t❑ -it O - T v° A ' 3 tp °❑ -0 n a 0 a - ❑ N Z 3 3 0 =.o 3'ii o :^ a� p o a,.. of — - o E a� Q ^. " a°n • �• n o N 2.-3a3 3 7 i its O ' p 3 ,�fD el ? !a sZ3.� 3.: •N 3.m 3 °•- �,aa a N -, 3 - - ' m ro _. Et: O ro ,p o 3 ° C.0 73_T_ r, c s o Z° a o.`° iso _ O �3- O ^ a -a 3 roN `. >: V> ❑ A A 3 7 — N O 3-❑ 3 O C o 3 7, p =.• E T } =.- LA a'rm ra F 'i 0 0« 7 •°C •<O 7 -O O 3•a -, -< ((p (D.c. 0 E. 3 ? '< O n.(E LI'-<O t° ❑ r' k - m A • r il t! � r A ` t > a s �` '.1. I 0 ,.. _:".‘72:16. es - * - 4 re '''N 0 '$.,f ) Ta <ES� ��, `` \ •♦411 t\ � r. , '•fp p • 'c4. :, -: � , � 1 2 s F p a ', ) ) //' -.,„,. )41:\ j ; ; - /1 1 f 7toe. I ts. E o ; 0 ti N .., \ 7 ' CL mN4X oa o° T ao n• '''• N ' N i o a / -qO i-,•1;c • p ® p rs o 3 . -r;rc C - a C C n='n qE vf a 0 ',„: u T o n n o ° '^r Ta1 1. N V tA ▪ < « D Z N ;>13o 0 n .o-7 o-7A ST y =.c v ---hl.r As p 13 O p -< M o " - o n o 3.T=-Jo7-> 3•o o_t..0 0o Te c n D n n p £ £ 3.3• rn 3 0 5g.-(3.7. <0 n peTs o n ° e -4 to p a QO ..a .- v o O 0 n eA rr <.. , c, o � n 0 n N £ a°„,. D -. f 3p_e3 «e een iPepTF .eTao3P «c 70 a-;+ N < ono " oZO o ^ o o _e NH Qnn po ° . ? CA a = - -r « 0a = Z ^ ' .. ° o 7flo ° 3 ° 6 o_t. 2 ° o'�s 3 mo � = at nCTe- 3ae 3,aMg oe D ° AN'o3 e �. _•a ;, O D ^ ;"n Z o -_.Q N A o - i v £ = o • Q 3o - '" . 3A .• .rh i - S oof• n -4. • o T r.N 5 - : _ S o c n „ _„, ),.00_.,,, _, c - . o _O< D O•.- ' D e T r.-t .�..2 < ao iiaYn D ° O' ip £ O C� TO (Vn - _ -0 7 e m 0- 3 O < c n ",6Q p - o. 'op -TT ' o • O° ,p -o Q - > 3 e m e n T. O °, 0-A 1.4.. • n sOoe y 3w -.=e 0 o o O A _ O x-a 7mo,oQ '^ ° - £ £ rS'a3m5_ cfl �• _ i - G ; n > a; O3n ,, C S 7 F e s,.6 = O s O n nO O,.- 7 .< NO J n O 3 < e .. 10 .1 S « u.no oa° oQp m oo ° o T� a � -0o Ocre ° eTT ,,; r A..< C N _ — _, A O - o_o ( Mc , a � , n �.O.nonFoA ? p < ' R •° G < _ -- 8Op9' c - Ao 7o '; 13 e Fs In o .3n0 a -, . i • oTx3a ?� D oo ° a < ' T _ ° n 2 o w an3 o o => '-. -.Oa •3 ? ° 2 D _3•~ ° 7F, - ory- < a 9 za d •3 7p n : 0QdTOA-V ao S OD - er U lo d Ti a 3 ° f0 e 0-p e O.n 1O15-Sa ° ~ 5 � O S,S "' .A co _ ? N O ° 4 .nom o ,o e 3 c G 3 ti • Q _ an o" e � apS = SE , n e Oo a. ° nQCo n 8- , 2, 0 ' o , Oe o p _ 0 A c, � o -c " ZE .o '' > 3- - o3 ' 0 3 e 3'Q xf - 0_ - ^ c M ° A Op -i c • « • e 0.° Q La''. '0 O ' T " < A 3'cO 7 ,e Ts U O - ` ...° -+ =.' 0 2.I'D 2j 3,•<N YN 0. - o 0 : <p e• a =M n 7/. a • 0 O ; 2 ^ ^ nQ4 e e e CO Aa . A S 0 - < ° w, 3 Ccp ‹ofl £ N 3on 0 l;'Q ` n='O aoc., a -. O 11 ,c - c x c OO e p S_, D We Q0 e.., n 1 at 3 C i, fD _"• O O Q p3• p n 7 0_ •.., - o ° n ` e ° 0_ 0°. 0_0 o Do « w < ' w To eDm- - Qo o ' o 0-a0° v< o_ MAo,- M • :: 3.-0 o 0 0 ii .c 3 ° z c °r33--� n - < , -o w o •' ' . :. o < it v e 3 ° .< i .. mo • _.e3o3 --.......p ' «37 o :A e? ° , o.. F0-,p ... e pp A, re ox� o3a0 ° ooa � 'F?in anoi.o" =e E Qam4'.e o3m „, 0 ° a Qe ,o ° _. 3 _ __; °' •- ' 4,,,:i2,:- ; o a o 3oco o s '�e A O n' a '.13'0 o cr e' i-> � ti "d;;�' ” V< c o 2 o o co T o ^ Ma ° 3 ^ p o ° Q s^ ^ ° . K.x'-..%--fit :le:- ,.•x"4'4.,;,. tai ,) .,-.- - r : i _. _ ..: , , .... . A I cm IM, AC� . . " � `'� 1 11 �\ ''4' ... ,. ,A -Z-5-1, _. ,,- i• 'x_r, ., .,.... ._ N.,. , ., . .... . i -.:. a O _ �` - '/1�� 4- . I m : O • t 'S n D ., jO }` Jk NO• '`\ S A t7"1 le i V .. 41/4. ,A . o A i a • wft.-+► *.tit awATv. A• r g ...,.e.....,..1*.,..-.:..111, .....e...._ n....,..,.. ...,....111....aull..._ --_......-, i i _- T D ❑ F O 0 'O ❑ CC) 91 '7', 0^7 O' 6 9 Q 7•❑- S+—tD -• 0 4 -• cot O C O° Q Q c S a - o ' 'v.' T Q-°c -• r• — D o 0 o m T c 3 ❑ 2 " 3 > > > C ' o ° o c p n ° D a ❑ -. = > Tm C1 n p D F F m a' aD °o ° =o c ❑ fl n ° ❑ g ° ❑ 3 n a o °v o t7 ° - ❑ �.� n F F c Z ° m W� To o �D "_ice• D 0�'� 0 X j —C Q tap OF °.C_-- W CI f D_'^ ❑ eD 7 ? a❑_C A Q Q`_. x- -- C' °C A ❑ O n° ..f'G Q_L F C- ❑-j C 7 ❑ ° Q SSC b P o-- N Q vp C Q ?" ° 1 f'9 Q n A `-. n�^ Q N- ° c 'J 72 ❑ ❑ =Q t A O Q_❑ - ...� ,9 (D °•A_7 n d n fc'❑_i. F. C T ° T S 1 O O O 7 i - j F ° O ? A Q_ n•N x Q 7p O O Ol 0 - Q T n fl • °- fl fl 3 O ° fD % • C F N« 3. ° ❑ s'o 3 60 m T� 3 NO c 3•90 �'N i f n n o (� 3.e p ° ° m 9 • 3- 3 > >'o ` o X Q_e❑ r"-)> > ...••• ❑ i❑ B. 3 Q S=A ° Q_❑ `❑ a T 7 N,--• m cr.o -++C1 ep c,,, m ' ' =.�Q ar o o p Jz=--• o < ° r. . 0_3 C-< 3 ° '< � Wp 3 3 v.co o O— x- _ v - n •° c ,C„ t❑ Q '� O N _�3. 7. <O A - S4 O « 0 n H•p n a n 1 _.C 7 O j p p c ❑ a•^ °„O U° O W aO O ;' O — ,/,-, < -o 0 O O rJ .�7 C 3. Q o c 3 3 ❑ °y ❑ • p f1 ° s 3 F ma a ' -< ❑ et 3 .^.- Q o a - —n' A - - - S N N Q 7 - a n 2 0 S c, ❑ ❑_ rD-.. O n p' T ry (J a -<O eD rJ eD n ❑ ° N np r N n S — ° Q e Q n ❑ 0 0 ,,, e — 4 �«,,, Q O j O N ❑_a, x 0 S V .. t❑ C 6° O ° p < Q p '^. F fp�^ eJ t❑ F '< O p p i.,..9._ C 1 0 0 ,3 j p <. N j N O p N 2 O W x' ii, O CrO tQ x-S ep —�•R T O F tD ` . _ o ep A eQ '< ° 7 O n ❑ N W — O • W❑ O W p o ap c Qni 3., . -_. , + — ❑ o a o `o TS N'o o < �' F o x o n.3 of x o -?.ap • ao o N ° o • .3 ❑ a o <Q N Q a Q_ ❑ F Q p Q ° _.< �.ca r'p O O e A O O'In S O 3 0 oa ❑ ° a 3 A A 3 p • 0 3 = 3 5 ° m o mIT 2 x Q _. ° r° Jr O M-n eD •< D S d tD Y S x ,L1 r•o « « 3 T n M .� .A. • O. s S.••[n N. T r,t} sit` jai De '{ L f. �sd v a 7.---, ""$'A o s , ' 'a te o tea . ! • � �� . ,,,,,„ii,. 77 r• : :10•.„,,,,r. % -< -.. .....-1... "io ''.':-4.vv,vl,'N - X'''' .4,'... I .( ' 11 V\.--' s. ; #'Will!:t, Pie 44, s't11.4$;\ r /.•v- .,l ‘,..N, � ;1' 777 y„i o �1/ ' y = a D el Z l `� 7C ern z�`�' 7C • - ca z ♦ •q.- �til<M i••Y r s +:T+-poi -- .:.44...,03,-.1. ..a}• .'":..•e. f .1 t x .'10 �S " .S „}. 4 `-w .,' A R' `F - ''sei.-r`3` 41 wf3 , Y.•r 1 .i,—,•. is. - 3' - 'i-: :::<:- -,� *t. <. ,5 <^ T+i•. p�.ry t .t yib'-fr�i i t',4.45. yw--00*-` ',v` ' `0,- '=", -;f,�•c. ,X'� tt -1 W s•. t _R*} ta - - • 4 } M ...,` ft 'r iS qty . • :-,:t-_: 43- ;" (,+/orf o ° nD p' p= Tz Ts 1`V- TrC s r-t _ ; ° _ Q 0 x 5 roo 0 D --.4,. 0 3 a ° 3 �al a S ro x n ° DV o m " a " D " 01 O 7 N n D t (--) 0 0 E. c. x ' a C D o 3 � o m 3 � n " " 3•�foo ov £ n - 2,30-07 " n £ 3'4^'. ' ~ ° •n•an ° ° n °�• ° _ --o ,9" " ° 0 o O O ro " o ._ _,'° c o O c O o n 3 n " 3 _. n C o =.00_=-13 , 'o N • — 3 s ° O 3 .<3 " v D T�c ;, it £ 3 v o ?3 T G1 " c > > " m- o £ 3 " £ z are z " o" " 3 " 0 3 0 0 3 ^ N 3, 3 H " = o 2, 3 ° S m D 2,S t^ .._ - C n o " 0-�` n 0 N _ " co r° g i° a° " 7 JO ° " m o ° ° c U a " 0 r, " ario' °•E. D °'7-•- -, c1 ° o -_o i° - � �Qo-3 v_- " "` 7; 2,2," 0 £ , "' 3 N.3 .° 3 2, D o 3 3• °-3 ° f n - co -o D " 0-0 — o ° "•7 T 3 0 ° wr'o D < o z" r c as � as n o ;•--7c 3 Q 3 -o o ^ of 2,o m � D -•3 co 3' 7 co co U " o m 3 " -, " " 2,0 '^ • S._' o rn c r-• D o D M MID ° £ , c..... 0 3=0 3 S �.rC.° -0 " -�n•O O " o 2,— 44 e a" �''m 0 N n a ° , o o ro oo ° ro o. 0K' ° D n n ° o z 3_.m 3 r' ° A C " n.N n 0 o =.a Sa--•aa•-0 ° -0 0 52 H o " N•3 3 ° D 2,., .( n ...▪ 7-r`o 3• Eta m o °" ° ° _.= a 3 ° £ o....° °• ° 3'a 13- o 3 0 ° " o ° ,� o " ,< m -< 0 0 0 c rD o o x-1 0 o 0 c o ° n =° v -<° a CrF Q fl ° < o c o ac c A 0 a'°." _ aro f „ ° m 2,0 n '” N m fl ° p cr 3"_ a o_ 3. ,, " T� 3r"o � � ° o ° ''C' 3 03 � �a$ N•, " " £ 4 " :o ° T 3rT3 ' 00-° t9 = c7, " " v ° o' £ " 2, 3 3'" nm o' o o � a 9 r- 3 i ° to .<N 7 c ,3 O.-T 0 O co 2,C 3•N c 'o J.o. ° i' Q 2,0 w° c 0 _�w" o o-0 o 0 ""=£ o aro '^ ° 0 m '<'> • > •" .+ rt°o ° c:s °'3 o_2, 3 ' — • 5. - o TS m " 3 0 �-' La 6 ° " " ° Dr'"' ' e9 a o 2,o 3 o v c Q a° " " a e " ro C c 3 co ro —re Q H E. _; ,T-r•s'' < a° o Q•?o mac•° o 2,3 o a.° o sa0 N 3 ? ° -< % . ° M m - ° C "Ur rD A — ° 2,1 2,o 7 •. T O N° '�-" " N _.rD 0 7 n n 7 A ° _ ry' o 3 6 _.o£ " s• ro m i° c' - £ < " 3 it a a a ' 0° a 3 sC 3 °" M a Q Q ° T ° fl 3 °•p K ° " S p N 4' -6-°a,- 3' 3.9 G " ' _ '4: " c 7 ° N ° 0 3...2,!n n H -•o c n rp rn 2 3're- o fl w nEr c " 0 —c _ •0 N c _;y° FT ao° aS °a"a o o n` °c o - 5 o N f9,o f o° , o ' -o m ° a' n ° ; re a� N w° N'3'N'c' ° n re re tea" 3'O j =f `° re„', cn fl 2, ° M3'o3 3 2, 4`%L . i::•. Criil"\ So.411° Y' .--44,:-W4 •A •e' . :NISillek‘k4i . t ;',/ -'1,P. ''' A'. li'e9 0 , -1` l'' le r. ,, ..„: 4.1.,0, , .4•• ' . 4sraie -111CO. . "..---- - )1:3% „. -R. i . .....„ ‘.I t'\ N . . x -\.,.....1:), . /2,.. ,.7 D ..1 .?. '11111ate....6. ‘.,- > t it CI 40 : .4,.. > J 3 T • .,-.!..4:-.,,r;.,4444,2"; +.0 r.. _`- • � K-lf: ffi-Y��""n1�,R.r^.:.> ti Y �' K x • . , fii ! �f J.. .,r- :.:4),,,..!,..,-,.,,.-,..,,,---F „-f`RAS-,. a ti ,... � Y -,,ris.?!..:F r ""?..442,-1."8 i .1.--;w4.:-.-,',74:4..,1.-. _ �rfl '{ a`�'•P ' ,a \ -•J i .f ,tt} ,f 'S f�� .'i. ..1 .l.V4t._ j* d.!•.. ¢ +' ^i .!.5,• -;,..,..:-`,...ti , - �'. ',..,.,2),, .J • �." j' - +p, e_ ' i,- [y. 1 . 4y",".4.71-0.:430,i," ii-�,Y' 0.: h r75 4 ;"41--t,„ffe .Ff - '"•'. ,3 7.....1.;;+"'!'.,%-1-.1.7-..L.:%-'.i-;:,Z.:, -S ; �,>X ? x 4 ; a `�f$4. `� it�.�ee.:•�' i. £'� 9� •c-N, .„ ,--,.J1.*'', j 3r� . Y i'4. i y . t." `tr < i F ;;r+ i�}ltt rY f- t +r ems''. i T��c -v4 :, t '-.' w .•t r:•a. ° i s•. j -QQp c;_ ` r. �S"h' - -w++ 7,-a a.-.' swri - '.�`ya - .7 •. , • ` 7n t Y� i. 1,• V.. 1C9� � N f tC� M, vY c. . ._ �Y 04. �" t �" ,, !'tom � p,s.•.�, ? ��.... c' ate`r � 'k._.y. y, ..y �!x � �S d-l�-w '•�. �• �� :a �� .,� 't�'t } « 't.7.4.41%,‘ k \ ` a f ✓a': -, i 4 aS 6 i` ' j� t2 t '. :i� • ••J- z.-ti N -`47 NJ u. 7....x•-• .1 .-.-e,-. _...... ..4*....,-.�� O 9a • ao �? _�� ?FR : '/ C1 o 7a-° fl o ..Z0_2 3— 3 o v o — ° ° D G1 ° £ o0 • p _ru TT m SF! FflU °• ~ 3•z•o ° ac30 Pan+ _ p _03 _ °'• 0 _. Z 70 o s ° c Ern , Q 7 N �0 <N ,c t'0 Sa r� SSD m.0 " Z O S--—, p N j O ,n' 3:2-g >a ID n <° T ° N ° 0 3 ° O p ti c �D 4 ^ H p ° _ -1 7 O p ° • co — ° 0 La — N. ° 4 Z- „ � 0 > < (1•••o ° W. 0 aO o ° `0 0 3 0c = 3.� ° N T o o o-� c °f o 3.8 - S ° a 0 ° EO ip T 07 S S 1J- f 0 a-C T ♦G S 3 ° + c ° r ° p i 0 T a� ° m.a�T < ^. �i p 4'�x o� 0_a� N v'°• --?, o ° -' 3' =o o • c aD>p p ° _ to o • c T= 3 11 T M ° k Q °c Z�°- �3 w °°. -��? 0 3 F c c n p f ° 'T' n o c i�-' 3'° ° N r ° m p °' o N o ° o°m w� ° � '• ��w� 2 so�•� f A 3'° 0 �° a3� o c k . - A O o fD 3 o up n •o • c 0 t9 O o rp - '. ° O ° x _ S 3. 3',50 (.,:e7 .8 Nc N o a O < ° V a --0 O U 3 p a S f 0..c.. 3-- O p ^-N 3'ti c N :,�` 0 S ( C -.• p ' ° S. 'O . s -' ° - ° O —3'O °' .n 0 Cr O o° c — 0.a -.- 4 ' j > •'° 0' o- O ° d ^- d?. t'D C 4 o .<S 3 n S o -< o N ° 7 —° O a =K.'• .%, -.• S 0_ 03 O a p U 0 ', D 0 = N .°n ry O o_w' * 1 fD p_TI ° ••C ° -.�1; 4,•e-> 2° i ° 3tr .F S t°D O o 3 0 7..•C ° O tr °t p V p S Z °_ o O S a 7 *" - . 7•N z-•6-Q.V ° 3 j-co< to `O• - ' N 7 x A< �. o r a-•fD f, Oo n 0 £•N• c-_c n' �p -c, �:- ° ;;' `p ? Q M o•Q D —7• �, . S? o'� °'j J ° — d o S N^O•�'0 RI T=o 0 fi : an — o ^ cr S;l.-.• o' < S ° m- N _ p �_ D o ° g-&- Q f °' D N ° ° ? 0 ° o v c a Q H H c °< 3 m "x .n .a 3 p f Q > D p o ° i/166, - O. Sn - 3 ` > K .p (0 m to O< o V .D -0 O x To d° �p ;q•!..'-, p Q•fl•p �_d K 4 < M Q O < 0 Q. _ p O' c o Q T�• -^3 r, S ap.rD S •< •—7 •— p —N ° <p O -. fD —O _.. ° < C O ° c T T ° jco M .. ' - / -'1 �c>-may,N'f \•t`Y` .A(.0' -`• L.` ` '/ .cam^>_•�• •440,%,- 4 I�^ . ; •♦ 't i' .K S". ..• \� .•. '""'•..1i.R.- .• •. ,� - ,• 4%7,. t` pg.*. !.- ........:::„, 4,(1 lc - 41k ...... 143;6":- J.R. .a a l i" 1.1�. mo•=i T'A� SN\\ f \ _{pn: -��yA , • - ' r 1 N D N •-,1' N 1 .y 1 . , E 1 i - -E i • • Mi .!. ! IL E I !! 1 I : . ,_. I 1 .i.. .• . . . . .ii ! 1 - -ii i 1 ' 1 '111 1 I ..., . ' • ; ;E : : : . : :: i - " :E ' i ; ' -r; ' "ri 1 . • i .. 1 . - 1 ' . . • . `.. itpi 1 1 1 : •••• : 7;r! ! iI 'r ; SLIIr; I 7 7 Ir.,E I I \% \ I Il WWI 'I Il '111111- ; 2 . • i 2 X2 \ \ E i I ; ; li I ; s s Iii , If.I 111 'Is k 1 ILI ! k;lig : .11 ; ;1 -.• .'="" \\ •• •• 7 7 . 1 # , . 1 E : : : " ''.1. x ... ' .._---- ., 4- -.--- , ..,. 4___...- --.----- __... -,,, • •-,-., i .I• or . . . E --21-\., _ _ _T_ _ —_-_-. .. ... ;•.......„ - ,i ,: ii r!Er ' ,!I •1 ,, -, 47% T. A: 4. ...... ili . I ; i ; . - 1 9 I . \ % el} ..7..' 2 ,,,,,- i •,, ••„ 1 ; il:z 1 P \- . . !..1 • L,• .N.. i $29- 7 I , ‘• 77-'' '`.4 ••••. ' • . t L "".%Z. . , li ; . . • -• ''. . I. ' i,_,-;' - 2 § ,;::•-• :.. -4 -..._ — .......-2-:.--.,_--r_-_-_-_, (:, y---—....---......___,.... .....-.1- , •,,,, --•- i . • .. E '. 1 . • • •-• 1 --40: ‘,....i.. •Yii w ' "9 -.:ste. "• ..;:.99.. I) 2 li- ' 1--..4...-1---- I__ --,.,-.-/..- . - _ / , . -- ...-- --- .:.-_..- It• 1 - • Is 9....Z.:- ....: - -..-._....__- 4 r- 0 ; .." ' \ .. m z .....1 - •• ... •."• '...:12\ ''t• 7 7 . \'.. :',..\\ Z: .• .,•„;, v.., '''.. i\V %* ...\ -'•.k- \ \ ,.• 1! /., „ i.. ..r.„,.,..:•le ',. e N:,,N, ,..."' ' 4, 4+\.„ •7.49. P .,Li:, • ‘kI 2 g ••,..• ..,„ ;:, f..,„;;:-.. •,,,,. , s, `.:,•. \N.% x ,•••••11• •\ ••4. sh • lk. , ••. - .' -/,•••\ ' -' ,_C - :-..•,/,A,s.m:'::::*•"•., --",.. ,,, X• .,,, I.'- ‘ •s N. . 'k,..,.. ,-, 1. • cs. 1,,1 ;: • ' • '' * .• 4;•••-, :.,•\ d::'.',; -;,h;„, \ 1 li C.) - -'• r- ',' ; ‘...6,..'.„...•' \ "ail --'7,- ,...-k. - '.•Vor;:";.'ll .....,„-,\: •••, i k y.,,, A-,,, ..• • • VAVIti 2. ,„..a.,, ......s's..... ..; ,......7;: r•••••:',.`,..,,,,s\ ‘33, i) ..... ' 1.,•0 -‘1 ... Z • --.'.. i 2 ' ‘ ..N, / "..• ,..!:-: 4N .\-4..: -,' -.=,la,s '''r - .----‘"st2-'s- ---- / '; 2 - W g'3' ''''......• :. --.. ,i, ''•-__ .: ' .\-,,;- .. ?,/0' ‘.k -. `...•\;'•:;\ -§ 3';;_..?,r , , . • 4-% _ --._ . , .. .t.-; ;.- • . -_ ..._ --.._. ',' sz ::••t'....,\--%* ......2--,,, ..c.„. .- _ ,, .\.%. et_.% '•-•:*----P., ''''' --'--- 24- „, 4 --., .."-N ,-..--;•",„ :',,•\ ---- ---c'4.0 --s- --• ••••-.. k ,e• - •- \ ./ En\ ... . .---_-_; .4,:..,...'" ''...„ ........, :. '. 4%\t•VI...‹, 8 :2 \., x ,/ xi \\.,.. ,Is,N... i'.,:::::-.. ..`" .....---.'1"•t,All..---•, %I% '.. f.... 2 li r,i, . 5 I. P .; ,,-, 1, \"i';',.. -"::-----....---- ...-----''' -.--4.'t li-I •;; 2- 2 XI \ - 41 -I",-,:•• .9. : 1. . \\ i, II.•;4 , 4, .., il\-...,• .. .,... *. W.- ... . ..'"..... .........' k.......7.:S=.... .":.. .....t.n.•.... .'••• •• arges R0.0 • • • 1 T s.,-.r•".! re...t.sv 9 V..7,1'...I.,2" sSSOOATCS.TIC. plf,"ISIR.r.-r*- .-'14": , AUDUBON 92 P.RINCRS..P C.7.S..'....:CNC,NEER'S I NOT SIPPIRICNOANRSYTIIIIANRUCTISON 141. I ' . (1,,C2.41,,CRIIIE.Ecs.S.IOC....C5Ou5:367 masmAsSEN BUWESS CE...7.4 NAS99:9 97 1 .-... II".Igi.... .1:::.esers'S.srs't 4* ../.., ,-....---/ '' „‘-t .', .:,- GOP w Z H O H D z 0 Co a H >- -Q Z xo w-- J I d iiii w _ 1 w cc Fk'2•!rci ! _ °C H j o a < n. 1- I u -, '� W _ Uw 0 . . . zW cc I �� w Az") F- a �3 W Z to I . 98 (2c1) �- } I Z • QZ ti1 QC/) -J W J p p WLIJ 3 J QZH W Z Q ' I ~w ��Q hc0 F-* V7 0< co C7 b 4 ... 1-- 141 U m j I _ W: ;44 2 a C.-c5 a I ° <� a..1 ri 1 I. . >- 5 1-f- i i I-- — v' W3 H cn9U U� U I ., 0 �6 c "i0 w 4 . m �� 1— ww o6 >- U w Al j W . ti �N U � a. 4 ZZEi� `� U� I z = N r� OI �ac� d coU Z a- 47 F- O ti)>• CO H - ' " 6 H m L11 / ". . ==i-.1 • cc X za>� H , 1 u . 4 CITY OF INDUSTRIAL NIANIIASOEN DRIVEWAY DATE 2-91PLATE NO. 5207 / , 7 ,-_<. fi/7- / I - ' - __ .• EI• V,: v mittiaa ,VA.. .WiliMpoprAiil NOTICE OF PUBLIC tvi--,1.4.. ih wr• HEARING � '�� r 0*' PLANNING COMMISSION . 00' rr4 rr ',� MEETING a � ; A �� '' '� CATI '0 Wednesday, APRIL 5, 1995 •7"'"' '_ at7.00pm ._1. 4 CityHall Council Chambers sett'' ••!-:107..� ��/=�'a=, `tri" Who`�,� �j /..-: ��f�"�u�"iv 690 Coulter Drive App �y PARK IMP .I. .71a:,, v Project: Power Systems .RK :�iaag-O. 7:, g i 47' 73r19- �•- �:, . Developer: Benson-Orth Associates - �• ::�' I :`41a0 _„E„ ii- -N. Iarat Location: Lot 4, Block 1, Chanhassen `� 1111 Business Center 2nd Addition 1 `��,'�� I �•M' Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is requesting site plan review for a 27,750 square foot office/warehouse building on 2.68 acres located on property zoned IOP and located on Lot 4, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, Power Systems, Benson-Orth 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 March 23, 1995. C . (A 3/7- lig 0'4 DAVID A STOCKDALE CHAN LAND MERLE & J VOLK 7210 GALPIN BLVD 200 HWY. 13 WEST 16925 CO RD 40 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BURNSVILLE MN 55337 CARVER MN 55315 CHARLES MATTSON RODNEY & L GRAMS WILMER & L MOLNAU 2870 WHEELER ST NO 8640 AUDUBON RD 8541 AUDUBON ROAD ROSEVILLE MN 55113 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM & V GOERS REDMOND PRODUCTS DANIEL & K OBERMEYER 1601 LYMAN BLVD 18930 WEST 78TH STREET 1540 HERON DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL & G SUTER ARGUS DEVELOPMENT JEFFREY & A KULLBERG 1530 HERON DR 18133 CEDAR AVE S 8480 BITTERN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FARMINGTON MN 55024 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL & J ADLER BROOK & S LILLESTOL ROBIN WHITE & 8470 BITTERN CT 8460 BITTERN CT DAWNE CHRISTIANSON CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8451 BITTERN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT & S KOBASICK BRIAN ROME DIANA C BERQUAM 8450 BITTERN CT 8461 BITTERN CT 8471 BITTERN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL & D CHOINIERE RONALD & D SEJNA SEAN MCGUIRE & 8481 BITTERN CT 8491 BITTERN CT LINDA SCHARWATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1500 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM & L GUNN NHIEN & A NGUYEN GREGORY & JULIE DOEDEN 1490 HERON DR 8490 SWAN CT 8480 SWAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER & J PAROLA CURT & D SANTJER JAMES & B NELSON 8470 SWAN CT 8460 SWAN CT 1591 HERON DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES & D OLSON JOSEPH & C KAMMERMEIER HAROLD SCOTT & 1581 HERON DR 1551 HERON DR JODIE FLOLID CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1541 HERON DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SOO LINE RAILROAD GERALD & K ALVEY MARK & D LAASER ATTN DENNIS MORRISSEY 1831 SUN RIDGE CT 8037 ERIE AVE BOX 530 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 MARLIN EDWARDS DOUGLAS BARINSKY WAYNE BONGARD 8950 AUDUBON ROAD 8731 AUDUBON ROAD 8831 AUDUBON ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RON ENTINGER THOMAS MICHEL DONALD & M WHITE 8851 AUDUBON ROAD 8941 AUDUBON ROAD 8850 AUDUBON ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL & J COCHRANE MITCHELL & M KRAUSE JAMES & L LEIRDAHL 1751 SUN RIDGE CT 2380 TIMBERWOOD DR 2350 TIMBERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TODD & S PAETZNICK CURRENT OWNER ALAN & K HEBING 10 LONGOBARDIE DR 2290 TIMBERWOOD DR 6290 PAINTERS CIR FRANKLIN MA 02038 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MOUND MN 55364 SUNIL & A CHOJAR MARK FOSTER & GESTACH & PAULSON CONS 7480 LONGVIEW CIR KAREN OLSSON 200 N CHESTNUT ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8020 ACORN LANE CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD CZECK & DAVID GESTACH PATRICA FOLZ-CZECK James & D. Lano 1531 SUNSHINE CIR APT 1 2060 Oakwood Ridge CHASKA MN 55318 6147 CHASEWOOD PKWY Chanhassen, MN 55317 MINNETONKA MN 55343 Blair & S Bury CURRENT RESIDENT JAMES & C DOCKENDORF 6040 Burlwood Court 2051 OAKWOOD RIDGE 2061 Oakwood Ridge Excelsior, MN 55331-8801 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MARTIN G HAHN DAVID & G MCCOLLUM RUSSEL & E CHANCE 3528 IDAHO AVENUE 2050 RENAISSANCE COURT 15561 HILLCREST CT N NEW HOPE MN 55427 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 STANLEY & CHRISTINE RUD ROBERT & R LAWSON GERARD & B MURKOWSKI 2030 RENAISSANCE CT 2041 RENAISSANCE COURT 510 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BURNSVILLE MN 55337 CURTIS & JEAN BEUNING ANDREW & S. RICHARDSON MARK & NANCY BIELSKI 2381 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE 8120 PINEWOOD CIRCLE 8140 PINEWOOD CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD & E. LARSON WILLIAM & LANA MILLER JAMES & BONITA ROEDER 8141 PINEWOOD CIRCLE 8121 PINEWOOD CIRCLE 8101 PINEWOOD CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY & JILL PERRILL CRAIG & M. HARRINGTON GREG & B. VANDERVORSTE 2101 Timberwood Drive 8140 MAPLEWOOD TERRACE 8141 MAPLEWOOD TERRACE Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREG & JULIE SORENSON NEIL KLINGELHUTZ CONST JEFFREY & JOAN HEINZ 8121 MAPLEWOOD TERRACE 9731 MEADOWLARK LANE 2071 Timberwood Drive CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 BRADLEY J FOLEY & ROBERT & NANCY KROCAK DAVE & KAREN MAENKE JUDITH A WERNER 2051 TIMBERWOOD DR 2041 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE 2061 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN & L KLINGELHUTZ 2031 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 1, 1995 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Ron Nutting, Nancy Mancino, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; John Rask, Planner I; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; and Bob Generous, Planner II. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 6 AND THE SOUTHERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 9, CRANE'S VINEYARD PARK INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 26,954 SQUARE FEET AND 36,387 SQUARE FEET, ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 1035 HOLLY LANE, JULIE SPRAU, RAVENSWOOD ESTATES. Public Present: Name Address Pam Myers 1115 Holly Lane Julie Sprau 2004 Scarborough Court, Chaska Deborah E. Grove Minnetonka Mirald A. Kroupstad 1035 Holly Lane Carl Zinn 5820 Ridge Road John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any other comments from city staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to make a presentation or make some comments? Julie Sprau: No. I think John's adequately described it. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Mancino moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion caned. The public healing was opened. 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: If anyone would like to speak at the public hearing, please step forward. Let us know your name and your address and let us know what's on your mind. Pam Myers: Good evening. My name is Pam Myers. My address is 1115 Holly Lane. I'm the adjacent homeowner. I have a question or two. My greatest concern has to do with water runoff. Storm water runoff and I didn't see the 14 points, or the 14 conditions with regards to this subdivide. I don't know if staff has...or what the plan is for water runoff. If you know the area, if you know Holly, it does come down from the top of the hill. The water runoff is from Powers or 17 or 85, whatever you want to call it. It comes down the hill through culverts that are larger at the top of the hill and get smaller as they come down the hill and at the moment they come down to the bottom of the hill to my front yard. I've worked with Mike Wegler terrifically well...in attempting to open up culverts. To open up the water runoff. With putting in two houses downstream from me, I have a feeling that they'll put in fill for this property...the new lots there which would build up that lot and therefore have less drainage downstream from me. I know that there is a plan, long range plan to do some storm water runoff management in that neighborhood. I would guess this is the only open property at the moment, so those plans might be for storm water runoff. Scott: If we could, because you have a number of questions I can tell. Probably the place to start, if we could have Dave Hempel, who is one of our city engineers, who's quite conversant in that sort of thing and I guess the question being, given what you know about the preliminary plat and the preliminary grading plan, what sort of things are going to be occurring relative to grading and then also our water surface management plan that might help everyone understand the situation a little bit better. Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. As...the city has been contacted regarding the water problem... Holly Road is a substandard city street. No curb and gutter. No storm sewer. The current drainage pattern is through an open ditch section along the south side of the road that meanders through the property that goes through a driveway culvert. There are a number of culverts...along the street there resulting in the water backing up...The city surface water management plan has indicated a surface water pond in the vicinity of this subdivision. Staff did look at requiring that the pond be built on the subject property but after reviewing the site, and the number of trees, significant trees, we felt that a better alternative...would be to the west on Ms. Myers property. Diane Desotelle, our Water Resource Coordinator has been in contact verbally, over the phone with Ms Meyers regarding this. There are no plans set for this storm water pond...actually a lower priority. There are projects...additional two home sites in the neighborhood will not generate significant runoff to adversely impact the current drainage situation that is...there today. We are looking at increasing the driveway culvert underneath the private driveway of this development to a 30 inch culvert which... We're asking also that the existing driveway be abandoned and the ditch section through there be 2 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 restored to help the drainage. One other thing that remains at the request of the city was to rework the ditch through this property down through the Myers' property too... Scott: Okay. Ma'am, does that help answer some of your questions regarding runoff and so forth? Pam Myers: It speaks to the need for larger culverts and it speaks to the needs for the drainage on the new property to actually be dug out which is... Hempel: Just to clarify. We did look at this parcel for ponding but all the trees that are in the front along Holly Lane there, we felt that it would be a waste to lose those trees. A better site would actually be on your property where the property is lower and is void of trees. Pam Myers: This is my front yard. Hempel: That's correct. Pam Myers: May I show you my front yard? Scott: Sure. Ma'am, if you could also help us out a bit. We have a preliminary plat map here and if you could tell us, show us where you're located. Nutting: Are you west of the proposed subdivision or east of the proposed subdivision? Pam Myers: West. Mancino: West, with the blue door? Pam Myers: I beg your pardon. Mancino: Are you west with the blue door? Do you have the blue front door? Pam Myers: No. I have a white house. Rask: Approximately right here on Lot 7. As I indicated before, Lot 7 actually has I believe 3 homes. Actually there's a home back here that sits somewhere in here. There's another home that sits kind of up in here and then I believe Ms. Myers' home sits up here somewhere. This would be the front yard I think where Dave would be, the pond. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: And how does that correspond with the pond? Actually the standing water that we see in these pictures? And we'll pass them to you Dave so you can. Pam Myers: ...the street where you can see the driveway. The driveway and the culvert are under water. Adjacent to the new property. Scott: Yeah, we'll get this over to Dave Hempel and kind of circle the wagons a little bit. Mancino: You have a lake. Scott: They call that New Years Lake is what they call that. Does that ring any visual bells for you Dave? Hempel: That would be approximately the area that we had proposed to excavate out as far as easements for a storm water pond. Pam Myers: That wouldn't be my choice for my front yard. Mancino: Yeah. The other question I have Dave is a little bit about timing. You said it's not a top priority. When you say that, are you talking 5 years? I mean doesn't this present a public safety problem? Hempel: I can't tell whether, what the storm frequency this would have been. 10 year storm event or 25 year, 100 year. We've had a number of 100 year storms in the last few years that would result in this type of flooding. Simply I guess we'd be looking at this type of improvement probably within the next 5 years. Storm drainage...and so forth. The other thing is...temporary fix to the whole problem. What really should be done is storm sewer incorporated with the street construction, curb and gutter and eliminate the ditch section that's currently out there. If that... Scott: Yeah because I was looking, when I was down there it appears as if there's a lot of untreated water that's going into Christmas Lake through that area so. Mancino: Are there other options that your staff have looked into besides Ms. Myers' front yard for a ponding site? Hempel: For the time being, no. We've considered contacting the City of Shorewood to do a cooperative project on the north side of the street. There's an existing wetland there that maybe could be expanded to use for storm water treatment. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Pam Myers: There is a pond...that's correct. Mancino: Okay. So you would look into that further as, okay. Scott: Is there any, do you see any jurisdictional delays due to having two municipalities involved in this potentially? I mean what's your experience been? I think we've only maybe seen one or two plats that have come by that have had some activity with Shorewood. Hempel: We've got a fairly good working relationship with the City of Shorewood. In this same vicinity I believe we service their homes with city sewer and water as well so I think... Scott: Okay. Well, we don't have concrete answers but that's one of the important parts of a public hearing is that we can at least get some more information from residents and what we'd encourage you to do is irrespective of what happens here this evening, to continue to follow the project and you're free to contact, of course not only the commissioners but also members of city staff and what we've found is that they're very eager to take the time necessary to get the all information possible and try to make the best decision for everybody so. Pam Myers: That's certainly been my experience... But a lake in my front yard is a fall and spring event. It's not an every year event. The property as it stands, the undeveloped property which is the...is low. I presume putting in pads to build the houses means that the developer understands that it's low... I also presume that means that that's going to be filled. I don't know what the plan is for fill in that area but that would mean that there would be less place for the water to go, which I would suggest would mean more back-up on my property. Scott: Have you seen a grading plan for the proposed subdivision? Pam Myers: No. I've seen a plat drawing. I haven't seen a grading plan. Scott: Okay. Well, you can get those from city staff and also we'll have some extras at the end of the evening but they'd be more than happy to sit down with you and explain, here's what it looks like as far as elevations. Here's how it's going to change and at least allow you to understand a little bit better what the impact might be. Pam Myers: Any higher, I would suggest than it is, they would want it to be in order to build there and not have water...and as soon as they build, then there will be more water... I have a second concern that has to do with the lot line. I currently am in conversation with Rick Vogt about the survey. The survey line does not agree with my survey lines which my survey was done a year or so ago. So that is not settled. That is not a settled issue. There's an iron set in a corner that would divide the two lots, north and south that I believe is too far 5 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 west into my property. Along that property line I do have a 10 foot easement for that house that's behind me on the part of Crane's Vineyard. And it would mean changing where that driveway was for the easement. So it's important that that be settled before we move too far along with approving the building. I appreciate keeping the trees. I think that's an important part of the project and I appreciate your mentioning that and the developer considering that. We also have peliated woodpeckers there and it would be nice even to have some of those older trees but we can't have both can we. To have the old ones and the new ones too. Did I ask all my questions? Irwin Stevenson: Well I think you need to ask what the Council's going to do in terms of allowing properties to built that just spreads more water onto there because logic, it doesn't take an engineer to figure that out... Scott: Sir, if you wish, I think what we'd like to do is make sure that your comments are recorded on the record. So if you'd like to step up and continue your comments, we'd sure appreciate it. Irwin Stevenson: Well, at the present time. Scott: Excuse me sir. Could you please let us know who you are. Irwin Stevenson: I'm a friend. Scott: Could we have your name and your address for the record. Irwin Stevenson: Irwin F. Stevenson, 110914 Von Hertzen Circle, Chaska, Minnesota. Scott: Great, thank you. Irwin Stevenson: At the present time, you saw the water that stands and goes over the road. As she stated, not on a 100 year cycle. But pretty regularly. And also that same water, at the present time we get some relief because it builds up on the property that we're now talking about next door. And so it's ponded too at times. Now the logic is, if you're going to build a house there, you're not going to, unless you're putting a submarine there, you've got to do something besides raise the property. And also the logic to me would be that it doesn't take an engineer to figure out that that water's going to go somewhere. And it's not going to go uphill. It's going to go down into that ditch. There's no other place for it to go. So therefore I would think it would be prudent to the Council, before approving something like that, that Mrs. Myers knows what's going to happen to her property. It can only get worst. It 6 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 can't get better. And I don't think it would be fair to allow something that now you deliberately say 5 years from now...that to me doesn't make a lot of sense. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak on this particular item? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ladd. Conrad: My only issue is drainage, which they've been talking about and I didn't see a solution that I felt real comfortable with that will take care of the current problem. So I think we need a solution. Scott: Okay. So your thought is conditions. Conrad: My thought is I'd table. Scott: Okay. Aanenson: Dave, maybe you can comment. There was a grading plan in the packet and it's maintaining the pre-development runoff rate so it's not increasing. I mean Dave could maybe elaborate on that more. I mean there's an existing condition out there. Whether this plat's responsible to solve that problem, whether this plat were to go in or not, there's still a problem out there so we're kind of looking at a bigger picture besides this plat. I think we need to separate those two issues and maybe Dave wants to comment a little bit more. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. The grading plan...only showed minimal grading for the house pads built approximately 18 inches and provides surface drainage away from the house pad. The current drainage situation out there is not going to be, first of all improved with this development, nor is it going to worsen. A problem exists out there...it's been there for a number of years and as development continues upstream, more valuable water in generated. So it's a much bigger project than this simple subdivision... involves drainage storm sewer piping, ponding and upgrading of the street essentially to solve the problem. And I was just going to add, by tabling this project would not solve any of the problems. Conrad: Well in the staff report Dave, that's sure not the impression I got, and maybe I read it, and maybe I didn't read your notes carefully enough but under drainage and streets, it 7 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 seemed like the solution was to develop a pond and that was not going to happen. And therefore, the way I read it, given the fact that that was not going to happen, we were not improving, or not even maintaining the predevelopment runoff. Hempel: The initial runoff generated from two house pads and driveways is really minimal compared to the overall runoff from the watershed that goes through this property. This property that's being subdivided is actually downstream and at the end of the watershed. The surface water management plan showed a ponding somewhere in this vicinity to treat the runoff prior to discharging into Christmas Lake. Not necessarily for quantity purposes but for water quality purposes. So any type of storm sewer improvements we do will help...the situation but will not totally alleviate the problem. Storm sewers are designed typically for a 10 year storm event. Anything greater than that, we provide for emergency overflows to prevent flooding of the homes and so forth. Aanenson: Can I just add to what Dave was saying? They are being assessed storm water fees to add to that project so we have, that's the purpose of the storm water plan. When we adopted those fees as property subdivided to collectively get that money in order to do these kinds of projects. So they are being assessed storm water fees for the eventual construction of the pond in that area. Conrad: Well again the way I read the staff report, it said we can't solve the problem. It has to impact it somehow. Has to. And therefore that's why I didn't feel comfortable with it. Now if you tell me this is 1/100 of the overall problem, or 1/1000, then I may pay attention but I don't know what it is I guess. Hempel: One of the major problems out there is the downstream culvert for this subdivision. It currently goes through Miles Lord. The culvert there I believe is only a 15 or 18 inch diameter culvert which is severely undersized. We propose a 30 inch culvert through that area. That is the restrictive device that is creating most of this backup into the upstream properties. Conrad: Yeah, but that's quantity and I'm talking quality I guess. So we can't really solve the quality issue until we build a pond. That's the bottom line. So the bottom line, if I said let's table it, you wouldn't come back with any solution other than the fact that in 5 years we may have enough money to treat the water and therefore maintain the quality of the water in Christmas Lake. Hempel: Certainly, yes. We'd look at it from that standpoint. We'd also put it higher up on the priority list if funding comes available. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Conrad: Well, I'm not doing that but, there are a lot of priorities. I'll be interested in the other commissioners comments. That's a tough one. My comment was, Joe is to table it but thinking I'd get something better back. I'm not hearing that the staff has got a better solution right now so I'm not sure how I'm viewing this. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: In talking about the ponding issue a little bit. We have approximately 10 feet of elevation difference between the lake in that northwest corner of the property where the ponding is occurring, so that tells me that that's over an average by 2% grade and you should be able to get the drainage flow. So that tells me that there's some, like Dave mentioned, restrictions of culverts, etc, that are making the problem worst because it should be able to be done. I had some other questions about the situation with the dock. Now I'm not sure I understand what the response of the applicant is regarding the letter that we have which states the dock hasn't been in. Is it the applicant's contention that the dock has been in every year for the last 12 years? Rask: I don't know, maybe if he's here, Mr. Krogstad or his representative, maybe they can answer that better than I could. Ledvina: So, it would be good. I'd like to get that on the record if that really is the case. Would that be possible? I mean you don't have to if you don't want to but I'd just like to hear what your opinion is on the dock. Scott: And this is an exception. Normally once the public hearing is closed, we do not have input from the general public but in this particular case, it's an important enough piece of information that we're making an exception. Merald Krogstad: There's been a dock on the property since about 1900. It's used for about 35 years. Scott: And you're Mr. Krogstad? Merald Krogstad: Yes. I'm sorry. Then when my parents had it we rented out the cabins we had back there and that picture show the dock in place. So I'm adjacent to the property so sometimes we haven't had a dock in as it got older. In fact I haven't had a dock on my property for the past 3 years because I'm too busy working in the summer to pay for the taxes on it. That's why I'm selling it and so I don't have time to put out a dock all the time. But we have had docks on and off. For 3 years they were putting in the sewer and they were removing the sewer so I couldn't use the lake for 3 years. I hired a contractor to move...and 9 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 then we had a dock up at that time. Then for several years a friend of mine put his boat there and he had a little dock this past year but I haven't had my dock in repeatedly for 12 years but we have...over a period of about, probably 3 to 4 to 5 years. It had a dock there when we bought it because it had a dock and we had lakeshore and we kept it and paid taxes on it and not used it for the past few years for the same reason. Scott: It's going to be real important for the purposes of the people who purchase the property that it's substantiated as good as you can. Very important. Merald Krogstad: ...after you pay taxes on it for 4 years... Scott: I know we had a similar circumstance where this same issue came up and one of the things that helped was there were some photographs I think somewhere from the Department of Natural Resources or I think the Department of Agriculture with their aerial photographs that were taken and that may be a source that you could tap into for your purposes as well, and there may be some other things available too but those are very helpful to us when we ran into this situation about a year ago. But if you have some pictures, I think probably the best thing to do would be to show those to the city staff and then because it's going to be important to do that. Thank you sir. Do you have some other comments? Ledvina: I had a question regarding the driveway. The existing, or the driveway along the east side of this parcel. Now that is an existing gravel driveway, is that right? Okay. Now with your proposed plat they're proposing another bituminous driveway right along there so essentially we're going to have 20 some feet of driveway or, are we getting together on this or how is that going to work out? Rask: Yeah, there will be approximately 10 feet where the existing driveway is now is actually on Miles Lord's property, Lot 9. There will be an additional 20 foot easement provided next to that so you'll have a 30 foot wide easement. On the 30 foot easement you'll have a 20 foot wide pavement width that will probably be on a combination of both of the properties over that easement. The private street section of our ordinance, this type of development does require that 20 foot pavement width built to 7 ton design. Ledvina: Okay so the access will be from the driveway that will be improved on Miles Lord's property, is that correct? Rask: Partly. Ledvina: Okay. Okay, well so he'll keep his edge of the pavement and then he'll improve it over on their side? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Rask: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. So they could... Rask: The existing driveway comes in here. The easement would provide another 20 feet here and I think it's their intention to make use of that existing driveway for the existing, that area not to disturb any additional area than what they have to with the pavement widths. Ledvina: It would seem to be a real beneficial thing not to have 30 feet of roadway right there...but I don't know, can we add a condition of that sort? I know we might be getting inbetween two private individuals coming to terms. Aanenson: A condition for what? Ledvina: For having an easement over the existing driveway. Rask: The easement will cover that existing driveway. Ledvina: Has that already happened or is that in the process? Rask: No, it's in the process. We've got an indication from the owner of Lot 9 that he is... Ledvina: Do our conditions in the staff report guarantee that that will happen? Or no? Is it appropriate for us to try to specify that? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Condition number 3. The applicant shall obtain and convey the necessary cross access or driveway maintenance easement agreements to provide access to the newly created lots. Ledvina: Okay. But that relates to the two parcels. It doesn't relate to the neighbor's parcels, right? Aanenson: We can modify it to include that language. To include the existing homes be included in that... Ledvina: Okay. Can I just add that in there? Okay. That was all I had. Scott: Great, Nancy. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Mancino: I just want to make the comment that I think all of us feel and Ladd has certainly said that we are concerned with the water quality in the area and as soon as something can be done about it, the better and we would like to pass that on to City Council so as they prioritize for their areas, their list throughout the city, that this is a very serious one. How many homes are on this private drive? Rask: There will be a total of four. We're not including, there's two residences on Lot 9. There's one up here on the lake and then there's, I believe it's a rental unit back there. The existing driveway comes in like this and then here. So it'd be that rental unit, the existing house on Lot 5 and then the two proposed. We looked at a number of layouts here. We looked at creating a flag lot. However, this would force a number of driveways. You would have one driveway coming in for Lot 1. Another one for Lot 2 and then a third driveway for the existing home so we thought this combined driveway, or private street would be the best way to reduce the amount of impervious surface. Mancino: Yeah. When you go and see the site, it certainly does and it kind of keeps the character of the area. It keeps it that way with not as much road coverage. John, a question for you. The back of the property, I want to say the north end of the property that we're looking at. There's, you know it kind of goes uphill and there's quite a few big trees on there. Were you thinking about doing some sort of a conservation easement in that area because of erosion, etc? Rask: Yeah, I guess based on where they're showing the building pad, the slopes in this area and the majority of those trees are within the required 30 foot setback from the rear property line. That those trees would not be disturbed due to construction activity for clearing a building pad. Mancino: Sometimes you put a conservation easement to make sure that they stay there even when a homeowner moves in and maybe wants to start taking them down. How do you feel about that area? That slope area. Are they something that should stay permanent and help in the conservation of that slope? Rask: Certainly we did look at that. However, I think based on what was submitted, we felt we were getting adequate protection. We felt they met the basic requirements of the ordinance. In addition, you know I think the applicant's been very sensitive about the location of the building pad as to reduce to a minimum the amount of trees being removed. Mancino: The only other thing that I would like to add is that on recommendation number 2 which says the site plan document should be revised to show driveway access to Lot 1 from 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 the proposed private driveway which will result in the saving of a significant 36 inch diameter oak tree. And those are all my comments. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I don't have any additional comments of substance I guess. On the drainage issue, I guess I would opt for supporting staffs recommendation. As Ladd commented in his final words, we're not going to come up with a solution over night and I'm not an expert in drainage and so forth but I'm presuming staff has done their homework in terms of assessing the additional amount of drainage that would be generated from this and not having a material impact in and of itself on that so. I would be prepared to move it forward subject to some of the modifications that have been addressed in Matt's comments and Nancy's. Scott: Would you like to make a motion to that effect? Nutting: Sure. I recommend that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-1, Ravenswood Estates, subject to the plans dated February 6, 1995, and the conditions as noted in the staff report with the following additions. Under recommendation number 2, added at the end of that sentence, which would result in the savings of a 36 inch. Mancino: Diameter oak tree. Nutting: Okay. And Matt, was the, I'm trying to think. The easement issue we felt was covered in the item number 3. Did you have any modifications to that? Ledvina: Yeah. I would suggest that the language read, the applicant shall obtain and convey the necessary cross-access or driveway maintenance agreements between new lots and neighboring lots to provide access to the newly created lots. Nutting: Yes, and also subject to the issue of condition number 15 which would require the applicant to submit proof to staff with regard to the existence of the dock prior to, is it January 1 of? Rask: July 11, 1983. Nutting: July 11th, 1983. Presuming at the discretion of staff in their evaluation of that. Scott: So you want to have, by virtue of a friendly amendment, condition in there about prioritization of the upgrade of the surface water treatment in that particular area? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Nutting: I guess I'm not sure that condition, well. They're two separate. They're related but I'm not sure that that condition makes sense putting in with this. Scott: I'm thinking when people are going through the Minutes of this meeting, see people tend to zero in when it says motion and then here are the comments. So maybe, I think what I can do is I can just make, I'll make a comment at the end, after we vote on this so those who read the Minutes will see that. Instead of having it buried in. I think it's too important to be buried. Nutting: I believe that's it. Scott: Okay. Can I have a second? Oh, go ahead. Mancino: I second. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we pass along the staffs recommendation subject to the conditions mentioned. Is there any discussion? Conrad: Yes. I'm curious what item number 15 means in terms of the grandfathering. Grandfathering means the dock has been in continuous use so Ron, you were asking the applicant to prove that it has been in continuous use since 1983? Rask: Yeah. That's a condition staff had recommended. What I indicated earlier was that when we originally reviewed this we were under the impression, based on evidence submitted by the applicant, that a dock had existed on this parcel for quite some time. Therefore it could continue to be used as a non-conforming structure. However, recently we've received some information that kind of contradicts that so what staff is asking is that everybody submit the information they have. The applicant, any other concerned parties. We'll review that and staff will make a decision regarding the non-conforming status. Conrad: Which means the applicant should be able to prove what? Rask: Prove that a dock existed on the parcel. This could be done either. Conrad: Last year? Rask: Yes. It has to exist every year since adoption of the ordinance. Conrad: Okay. Was the motion made to indicate that? 14 • Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Aanenson: Yes. That was condition 15. Conrad: Okay. That's the way you heard it? Aanenson: That's the way. Conrad: You're going to write it. Aanenson: Yes. Ron just summarized it. Conrad: With a dock goes 3 boats. Aanenson: The issue here is because it's so narrow, they have to meet the dock setback zone so that's why they're non-conforming. That's why we're saying that if they've had a dock, they can continue to use the dock as long as it's always been in the water. If you don't have it in there for more than one period, you've lost your rights. Conrad: Right. With a dock goes 3 boats overnight. Aanenson: Right. Ledvina: Just to further add to that. I would like to make a friendly amendment, in the event that the dock is approved. I would like to amend condition number 14 to clearly state that if the use of the dock is discontinued for more than one year, the legal non-conforming status is lost. Nutting: I'll accept that. Scott: Okay. Is there any more discussion? Nutting moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-1, Ravenswood Estates, subject to the plans dated February 6, 1995, and the following conditions: 1. Tree preservation and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application for staff review and approval. Tree protection fencing shall be incorporated on the site during construction and demolition to protect all trees that are to be preserved. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 2. The site plan documents should be revised to show driveway access to Lot 1 from the proposed driveway which will result in the saving of a significant 36 inch diameter oak tree. 3. The applicant shall obtain and convey the necessary cross-access or driveway maintenance easement agreements between the new lots and the neighboring lots to provide access to the newly created lots. 4. The existing cottage and garage shall be razed or removed from the site within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The utility lines to the cottage shall be properly abandoned in accordance with City standards. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the City. 5. Soil reports showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soils shall be submitted to the Inspections Division prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the time of building permit application. 7. The existing power pole along the east property line shall be relocated to avoid conflict with the proposed private driveway. 8. Sanitary sewer and water service will have to be extended to Lot 2. The applicant and/or builder at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed another trunk and lateral sewer and water assessment in the amount of $8,124.00 (1995 rate). The City will credit $2,500.00 against these trunk and lateral sewer and water assessments if the applicant or builder constructs the individual service lines from the main line to the property line. If the City performs the work, no credits will be given. 9. The existing hydrant located in the northeast corner of the site shall be relocated to avoid conflict with traffic. The City shall perform necessary inspections to insure proper construction in accordance to City standards. A permit will be required from the City for this work. The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the relocation of the fire hydrant. 10. Storm water quality and quantity fees shall be based in accordance to the City's SWMP. The water quality and water quantity fees have been calculated at $1,088.00 and $2,693.00 respectively. These fees are payable at time of final plat recording. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 11. The existing gravel driveway on the west side of Lot 1 which accesses to Holly Lane shall be abandoned and the ditch section restored. All new driveways which cross the ditch section shall have a 30 inch diameter driveway culvert installed along with riprap. 12. Type I erosion control fence will be required in conjunction with site grading or new home construction in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 13. Portions of the private street which services more than one homesite shall be constructed with a bituminous surface 20 feet wide and designed to support a 7 ton per axle weight. 14. Storage of boats at the dock must be consistent with applicable city requirements except those which have the legal non-conforming status. If the use of the dock is discontinued for more than one year, the legal non-conforming status is lost. 15. The applicant is required to submit to staff for their review evidence that a dock has been in use on the property since 1983. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: This is going to the City Council on the, it's still scheduled for the 27th of this month? Okay. Good. And just a comment with regard to surface water management. Obviously we have some concerns there that we'd like to pass onto our folks at the City Council. And then also when a decision is being made on the dock, please whoever is going to be involved with that decision really has to take a very close look at how the decision was made on Schmidt's Acres because in that particular situation the time frames were very similar. Early 1900's. And also there was conflicting information from those who were interested in seeing the dock versus those who weren't and there was antidotal information that was accepted but there were no photographs available for each year so we have set a precedent in that particular issue and I think we have to pay very close attention to it when you guys make a decision on this one. Conrad: And Joe, what was the ruling on that? Scott: That they kept the dock. The situations are extremely close as far as facts and so forth, so I think that's a, we're always careful about when we make a decision on something like this that it follows that the next time it's made, it's consistent. Conrad: And that one had a 10 foot piece of lakeshore? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: No, it was 50 feet. Or no, 30? Yeah, it was non-conforming. Conrad: I'm real uncomfortable with my decision. Aanenson: The beachlot thing's a little bit different. We were trying to attach the documentation to 1981. Okay. In order to maintain the legal non-conforming, he's got to demonstrate that it's been in there every year. The burden of proof is. Conrad: The burden is on him. Aanenson: Exactly. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you all for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,052 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 3, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 900 WEST 78TH STREET, GENE HABERMAN, CENTURY BANK. Public Present: Name Address Craig Hallett 983 Santa Vera Drive Ken Brooks Eden Prairie Pat Giordano Minneapolis Sheldon Wert Minnetonka Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from staff? Good. Questions or comments from commissioners? Mancino: I'll wait. Scott: Okay, good. Would the applicant or their representatives like to make a presentation? Yes sir. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Sheldon Wert: My name is Sheldon Wert and...fine with us in terms of the signage. We're trying to work that...with them prior to the Council meeting and it will probably be turning around the landscaping... There is still one issue though and that's item number 9. We're not sure... Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that. I did have a conversation today with the project engineer to try to resolve the steep driveway and grade that is currently is proposed out there...either by lowering the site, which the applicant does not want to do at this time which results in redesigning the parking lot grading a little bit. Maybe additional storm sewer...so I believe we can work it out though with the parking lot grades. Massage the grades out to 5% or 6%. Scott: Okay, so it's currently around what, 9 or 10? Okay. Facing south? Hempel: East. Scott: Southeast? Directly east? Nutting: So you're saying 5% or 6%. The condition says 5%. There's some give there a little bit? Hempel: Some flexibility. Scott: Okay, go ahead. I didn't know you were waiting for me. You have the floor. This is a public hearing and can I have a motion to open the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public heating was opened. Scott: Do any members of the general public wish to speak about the Century Bank site plan review? Let the record show that no members of the general public wish to speak at this public hearing. May I have a motion to close please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ron. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Nutting: I don't have any immediate comments. It sounds to me like the applicant is supportive of the landscaping changes that have been proposed and it appears that the grading issue can be resolved. So I don't have anything further at this time. Scott: Okay, thank you. Nancy. Mancino: Do we have Bob, the material, building materials here? Aanenson: Maybe give them an opportunity to explain them. Mancino: Oh, good. Great. I was going to say, is the architect or landscape architect here? Would like to present. Architect: The primary building is face brick. We have the actual sample here. The face brick would match closely the brick that's being used on the Byerly's development in the West Village Center next door and to Kinko's to maintain some continuity between the designs. There's an accent brick also being used which is the light colored brick. You can see it's in a soldier course around the top of the building and then also in some...locations for some accent around the arches of the entry counter. And then the roof structure is a standing seam metal roof. This particular material. It's a very deep red in color. We feel it will look very nice with the brick material. Mancino: It will be exactly that color? Architect: Yes. That's an actual sample of the material. Mancino: When you said that it resembles the brick on Byerly's and Kinko's, it's not exactly the same? Architect: Yeah, it actually is the same blend of brick. There is some flexibility in terms of you can see the speckleness to it where you can pull out some of the dark colors and mix the composition a little bit. Mancino: Got it. How tall is that front entrance and tell me a little bit, I mean I do go to Byerly's but the entrance seems to be so big and massive for the rest of the building. Is it something that is duplicating what's in front of Byerly's? At the same size. The same level. Architect: The style is that the scale is probably about 2/3 that of the, not that massive entry as Byerly's. We're substantially smaller than that in terms of height and scale. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Representatively we're probably, the peak of this roof is only about 10 feet taller than the Kinko's that sits out on that lot. Mancino: And how much taller is it than the peak of the roof of the bank... Architect: Behind it? Mancino: Yeah. Architect: About 6 feet. What you're seeing, because of the perspective, Powers sits way out in front perspective wise. We're trying to give you the actual view as you're coming in from West 78th. You're below the building by 6 or 7 feet because of the way the site grades out to the back. Mancino: Okay, thank you. It's a good looking building. I have some questions about landscaping and that is, number one, I haven't seen, first of all what is the slope in the back of that? I mean is that a 3:1? Is that 2:1? I mean that's a horrendous slope. Hempel: The north slope between...that was designed at 3:1 slope. Fairly close to that. Probably a little bit steeper. Mancino: Yeah, it looks steeper. My questions have to do with then, are we, I haven't seen a whole integrated landscape plan for the entire north slope so are we going to have places where in back of one building you're going to see these hard edges where we stop the pines or the spruces and then go to sumac and then go to something else or are we going to have an integrated landscape plan back there? I haven't seen that. Architect: ...in terms of where we put those actual materials but the materials we're putting back there match what's being put behind the Byerly's and the west building. Mancino: They do continue. Now there aren't any white oaks behind Byerly's, are there? Generous: In the plans there are. I don't think they're planning it but. Mancino: Okay. How are they going to be watered and maintained on that slope? I mean there's going to be continual water runoff. What kind of, do we have any nurse crops on there? Architect: Yeah. I think one of the things we addressed early on with the planning department is, there's a requirement in terms of size of trees and so forth and we've met the 21 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 quantities and sizes required of certain trees but we're actually putting smaller oaks in the back because there's a much better opportunity to maintain their growth than if you try to put a large size oak... Mancino: Well what, are you getting bare root that have been potted last fall by a bailey's or a gross? Architect: I'd have to refer to my landscape architect to guarantee that. I think Bob had a little bit of a write up regarding the landscaping in the report. They had reviewed it with the forestry people in terms of what's an appropriate use back there for a planting. Mancino: I would like to see a much more, and maybe this is somewhere, I'm not sure Bob, but I have a concern that there are going to be pockets around these trees. That they're going to be watered weekly. If there is some maintenance agreement with the contractor that these be watered weekly. And that the contractor has the responsibility of doing that and also after a year, replacing any of the trees because that is a very hard slope to keep things growing on. And they need to be watered every week of the summer. And a sprinkler system won't work, nor an irrigation system. Because the water will just run down the slope. The other thing about the landscape plan that I see is that, as we were creating the tree preservation ordinance, we wanted to see a varying size of trees. We wanted not just to see 2 inch or 2 1/2 caliper trees. We wanted to see something that had some design into it and so I would ask that, and it certainly doesn't have to be in a recommendation though, but that staff and a landscape designer work with varying some of the sizes so that in the front and those crab apple trees in the front that we do 2 1/2 to 3 inch calipers and then maybe go down size in some other areas. I would also like to see some sort of a perennial out from. Whether it be in day lilies or roses but. That's all the landscaping I had. What is the impervious surface Bob when we go to the expansion? I mean at the point where the bank expands. Does that come back to the Planning Commission for the expansion? I see on the north side. Generous: It depends on what percent it would be. Aanenson: If it's less than 10%, they normally just administratively approve that. But it would still have to meet the standards of the underlying district. If it blended in all materials and met the impervious surface and setback standards...we'd approve that administratively. If there's something beyond that, then we'd bring that back to you for you to review. Mancino: If it's, so have we figured out, it's 57% impervious surface right now. Hard surface coverage when it's expanded? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Generous: I haven't figured that out. I don't know exact dimensions what they're looking at for the expansion. I'm not sure if they do right now either. Architect: ...out the area that the expansion would be allowed in...a lot of green space in the front side. Mancino: My only other question Dave, is a little bit about the traffic flow. Oh, I have one other question for you. Are there going to be, one of the things that I like about Byerly's, in the parking lot etc, is that when I went out the other day and went to my car, you kind of have pavers right in the parking lot so I kind of know where to walk. That are more pedestrian friendly. So there's kind of a pathway. Will there be any of those connecting this building to what's going to be west of it? What's going to be south of it? Like if I want to get to Kinko's. Architect: We have a connecting sidewalk that links, from the kind of the picnic area that's next to the Kinko's development there, across to our development and actually under and through our tower. And then onto the adjoining site with the intention that you always have that circulation extended to the remaining two lots to the west. Mancino: Thank you. Dave, you suggested putting a stop sign at the southwest driveway entrance for eastbound traffic. Where is that? Hempel: In this location here. When you drive out to the existing north/south street where it comes out across from Target. This driveway in here does not have stop signs for traffic flow. Mancino: Okay. So when you drive up there and you can enter in the front or you can park at the front of the bank. Hempel: This is a two way entrance. This is an exit only. Mancino: To the left, okay. Hempel: And this is an enter only as well. Mancino: I was going to say, does it help at all having that not be a two way entrance but just one way? Hempel: This one? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Mancino: Yeah. Hempel: I believe that should be a two way. Mancino: In case you don't want to get in, okay. And is there any stop sign from the west? Will there be one at this point? There will be one there? Hempel: There will be one here. And also one placed here. Mancino: Okay. And on the west side, will there be one from traffic coming in from the west. Will they have to stop when eventually that gets. Hempel: When this continues on? Mancino: Yeah. Hempel: This would be a free flowing lane of traffic similar to what's in front of Byerly's now. Mancino: Okay, thank you. That's all my questions. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: I had a question for staff. It says that, on page 3 we're talking about the architectural design standards. There's a reference to the Chanhassen gateway monuments and I really don't really know what those are. Generous: Just the use of the tower. The tower structure. There's one, the clock sign on West 78th. That was the only reference I was really talking about. Ledvina: Okay. I thought you meant like making reference to the entry monuments. Generous: No. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Because we haven't seen those. Or the latest rendition of those. Alright. I don't have any more comments. Scott: Okay. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Conrad: I think it's a real nice project. I compliment the applicant and the staff. They worked a lot of things out. I reinforce the fact that we didn't have to beg for sidewalks this time. That they're there. The design is nice. It fits. Traffic flow works. Just a comment. Here's a case where the building is under signed and our ordinance will not let, what was originally proposed I think was real appropriate in terms of taste but our ordinance wouldn't allow it. I think staff gave us the right recommendation. But on the other hand, here's a case where tastefulness was there, yet our ordinance didn't allow what the applicant wanted to do. Nothing else. Scott: Good. Can I have a motion please? I can second them but I can't make them. Mancino: I move that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of Site Plan #95-2, subject to the following conditions. Number 1 through 8. Number 9 should read, that the applicant and staff will work out all street/parking lot/driveway grades on the site. Number 10 through 18 reads the same. Number 19 is, the applicant shall submit to staff, and work with staff, on a maintenance plan for the upkeep of the plants on the northern slope. And I'd just like to add to that, and revise the landscaping plan to include more diversity of sizes in the plant materials. Conrad: I second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we pass the recommendation along as amended. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of Site Plan #95-2, subject to the following conditions: 1. Add one (1) fire hydrant in the vicinity of the parking lot island at the south/east corner of the building where utilities enter building. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 2. Install a post indicator valve (PIV) on the fire service water line coming into the building. 3. Install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. 4. Comply with "No Parking Fire Lane". See Policy #06-1991 (copy enclosed). 25 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 5. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. NSP, NW Bell, CATV, transformer boxes, trees, shrubs, etc. Pursuant to City Code Sec. 9-1. 6. Comply with "Premises Identification" Policy #29-1992 (copy enclosed). 7. Revise the landscaping plan as follows: use 6 foot high white spruce for screening purposes, rather than the proposed 3-4 foot high trees; replace the four Skyline Honeylocust in the landscape peninsulas in the front of the bank building with Northwood Red Maples (Acer rubrum 'northwood'); and reverse the placement of the middle six White Oak and the middle eight White Spruce along the northern property line of the project. 8. The applicant shall provide a landscaping security in the amount of $12,500.00 in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. The guarantee shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one (1) full growing season after the date of installation of the landscaping. The applicant shall provide the City with a cash security escrow in the amount of $2,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration along West 78th Street. 9. The applicant and staff will work out all street/parking lot/driveway grades on the site. 10. The driveway entrance for the drive-thru bank located in the northeast corner of the site should be expanded from 16 feet back-to-back to 18 feet face-to-face. 11. The boulevard area lying west of the drive-thru window should be flattened out to be compatible with future development on the parcel to the west of this site. 12. The applicant shall submit detailed stormwater calculations for a 10 years storm event to the City for review and approval. At a minimum, another catch basin shall be installed at the end of the south radius of the southeasterly driveway entrance to the bank. Additional catch basins may be required pending review of the storm sewer calculations. 13. The applicant shall amend the site plan to include a stop sign at the southeast driveway entrance for eastbound traffic and replace the proposed "Exit Only" sign on the island south of the drive-thru aisle with a "Left Turn Only" sign. 14. The east/west service drive south of the bank should be modified to begin turning back to the north to provide sufficient turning and stacking distance at the next intersection to the west. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 15. The applicant shall work with the developer of the Byerly's site to resolve the existing drainage problem on the service drive along the east side of the site prior to paving their parking lots and service drive. 16. The developer shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 17. 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. 18. To minimize off-site impacts, light levels as measured at the property line, shall not exceed one-half foot candle. Lighting fixtures shall incorporate the use of photoelectric cells for automatic activation. Light poles shall be neutral in color. 19. The applicant shall submit to staff, and work with staff, on a maintenance plan for the upkeep of the plants on the northern slope and to revise the landscaping plan to include more diversity of sizes in the plant materials. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE REALLOCATION OF DENSITY TO INCLUDE 51 TOWNHOUSES AND 70 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW OF THE TOWNHOUSE UNITS FOR THE OAK PONDS 3RD ADDITION LOCATED NORTH OF SANTA VERA DRIVE, DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Dean Johnson 8984 Zachary Lane Bill Olson 1521 East Highway 13 Tim & Mary Anderson 7550 Canyon Curve Craig Hallett 983 Santa Vera Drive John Linforth 7471 Canyon Curve Dave Callister 7540 Canyon Curve Mark Littfin 7609 Kiowa Avenue 27 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Name Address Emily Tischleder 185 Pioneer Trail Viola Scharrer 110340 Geske Road, Chaska Marietta Littfin 7509 Kiowa Avenue Bernice Billison 7281 Pontiac Circle Sherol Howard 1005 Pontiac Lane Barbara Montgomery 7017 Dakota Greg Hromatka 7580 Canyon Curve Earl & Betty McAllister 7510 Erie Avenue Gladys Schueren 204 West 77th Street Albin Olson 406 Santa Fe Circle Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: So are we, by passing this on today, are we committing ourselves to putting 70 units on the space adjacent to Kerber Boulevard? Aanenson: If you were to approve this PUD, yes you would. Part of this, as Sharmin indicated, is we're looking at the transfer of density so that does, what we said is we need 70 units in order to make the financial numbers work. So if you're uncomfortable with that, that's part of your motion. You're allocating. What we are saying is that we're not reviewing the site plan on that project at this time. You will have the opportunity to review that site plan at a future date. But yes, you are, what you're doing with this is approving the allocation of 70 units for that parcel of property. Mancino: And we're increasing the whole by 2 units. Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. Al-Jaff: But we are still under the 12 units per acre. We will exceed the overall number that was approved in 1992. Mancino: By 2. Al-Jaff: Correct. Sharmin Al-Jaff continued with the staff report at this point. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: Any questions? Ma'am. Mancino: Does the city own Outlot D? Aanenson: Yeah, we're in a purchase agreement with the applicant. Mancino: Oh, okay. To be buying Outlot D. Aanenson: Yes. The City Council did authorize the City Manager to pursue a purchase agreement on the property. Mancino: Okay. Is this development getting TIF funding? Al-Jaff: Yes it will. Mancino: The entire development is? Or just senior housing. Or is it all under, in the TIF district that is getting HRA. Al-Jaff: I believe the entire site is within a TIF district. Mancino: Okay. And I just need a little bit of background and then I'll stop but I need a little bit of background. When this originally came in front of the Planning Commission in what, 1992. The whole area came as a PUD and from reading the report, and please let me know if I'm wrong, Outlot A and Outlot B have been constructed. Outlot E and F are what we're going to see tonight. Outlot D is senior housing. Outlot G the city owns. Where is Outlot C? Is there an Outlot C? Al-Jaff: This is Outlot C. Aanenson: That was proposed for a recreation center project. That was the recreational center that was proposed with the project. Mancino: The recreational center, okay. My other question is, when this was originally proposed in '92 it had a combination of owner/occupied and rental housing, correct. And the reason that, and please stop me if I'm wrong. I mean one of the reasons that the Planning Commission was approving it and supporting it a lot was because there was some rental units here and we are in desperate need of rental units in Chanhassen, or so I believe. Is that, is what I'm saying correct? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Aanenson: I think part of that was true. The other factor was the footprint of the building. The neighbors were concerned, they wanted the owner/occupied adjacent to them and the rentals on the other side. And you'll recall we went through a lot of issues, because of topography that was felt that based on the footprint of these, there was greater preservation of the natural features with the footprint of the apartment buildings. That's how they ended up that way. I'm not sure we really discussed that that was a reason for approving the PUD was the apartments. All I can say is that the apartments were on the northern portion based on preservation. They were able to snap the units in such a way to preserve more of the topography. Mancino: Okay. So we weren't trying to fulfill a need also for housing in a TIF district? Conrad: Not to my knowledge. Aanenson: Not to my knowledge. Conrad: But that doesn't mean anything. But I sure don't recall that. Mancino: That's what I wondered. Just because if there had been a change, seeing from what I saw in the report. Conrad: I just remember the neighborhood being so concerned with rental property across from them. Very concerned. Mancino: Okay, thank you. That's kind of the background that I wanted to get was how important that was or wasn't it and etc. Thank you. Scott: Any other comments? Ledvina: I had a question for staff, Mr. Chairman. As it relates to the 70 units that are proposed for the senior housing. I imagine the city has done conceptual designs to demonstrate the feasibility of those units on that parcel and everything fits and we're not going to have a problem with jamming things in. Aanenson: No, we've got a tentative model here we can show you. Al-Jaff: Keep in mind that this is a concept at this point. Scott: While we pass this around, are there any other comments? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Ledvina: This shows that the elevation to the west is higher. Actually higher in elevation. That's really not going to be the case, is it? Because it seems to me that there's a graded pad out there already and it seems to be much higher than the surrounding topography. Hempel: I don't think I can answer that because I'm not aware of any of the plans that I have seen. Ledvina: Because this is. Al-Jaff: This is the east. This is the west. Ledvina: Wait, okay. I'm sorry. Then the east. This is Santa Vera. Kirk Valette: The east is a little higher. The east is that Tower Road. That Tower Road is a little higher than the grade is at. Ledvina: I'm thinking over here. I think the pad seems to be higher but maybe it was an optical thing. So obviously we've looked at that and there's many, are there. Aanenson: If I can give you some more background on that. When the city held a meeting last fall, when we were looking at this, the City Council held a meeting and the neighbors were invited and the Senior Commission was also invited to that meeting and this model was available just for discussion purposes to let the neighbors know that the city was interested in this and that came out of the Vision 2002 study that the city was involved in and looking at senior housing and the options they were looking at. The property at West 78th and some various options so a neighborhood meeting was held to let people know that the city was interested in pursuing this site and it was subsequent to that meeting that the Council authorized the city manager to go out and work on a purchase agreement. So a neighborhood meeting was held to let the people know that this was being considered for senior housing. And it kind of evolved as we went through the Vision 2002, and that model was there. Mancino: And the height stays within our ordinance? Al-Jaff: It's a planned unit development. Aanenson: The R-12 is 40 feet. Scott: Pardon me? The R-12 was what? 31 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Aanenson: Is 40 feet, or 3 stories. So it's under the PUD we'd have to look at that. And Sharmin, based on the model here, that was just put together and there's been a lot of, maybe Sharmin can walk through that but what we're looking at as far as to reduce the impact of that imposing. I don't want to get too much into it but obviously the two are wrapped together but it is a concern for those neighbors. The imposing perspective of that product. Scott: And I think also the history too because, although I wasn't on the Planning Commission in 1992, I had some, by accident had some experience talking to some of the neighbors and from what they're telling me, and I think I've gotten more contact from neighbors on this particular issue than any other issue I've dealt with the last couple of years. And perhaps if there are neighbors here that can probably articulate it better than I can but the feeling that I picked up on this, and it wasn't very hard to do this, is that their expectation was one of a couple story buildings, rental, to own and so forth and then we're looking at a 4 to 5 story structure, which makes them quite uneasy because they felt that when they went through the process and were expressing their concerns about the development, their expectation was that the entire property was basically to look like the stuff that's there now. And so anyway, the concern that I've got is I think, we absolutely need that sort of a structure. Or not necessarily that sort of a structure but we do need that sort of housing. That's pretty obvious we have a dearth of that here and I'm interested in hearing from the neighbors at the meeting. But to basically get the, to make the project financially feasible we're looking at about a 4, 4 to 5 story structure. Al-Jaff: Again, the design has not been finalized. Scott: Well I can ask the applicant about it. Al-Jaff: Yes. We can definitely say that we need 70 units because that's the only way the project will be feasible and we will have the cash flow. And Julie Frick with Carver County HRA who has been working on this project as well, could attest to that. The City is working with Carver County HRA at this time to make this project potentially happen. Again, it's the 70 units that we can... Aanenson: What I wanted to say is Sharmin's working with the, we do have a design team on that. We're trying to step back the units so there's not one straight sheer wall. Trying to make it less imposing so we're working with some different designs. We know there's a concern about that and we....lower profile owner occupied ones right in that area so it is a significant difference. Al-Jaff: One other thing that might be added. If you look at the model that's up there and this one, we've already made some changes where the fourth floor has been stepped back. So 32 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 changes have started to take place but again, this is far from complete. So many changes have to take place yet. Scott: Okay. Questions? Comments? Dave, do you have anything? Hempel: If I could just make one point on conditions of approval. To duplicate what the Fire Marshal, condition number 1. I'd like to delete number 1 and condition 10(b) is the same. Scott: Good. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Kind of a redundant question but I'll say it anyway. Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Brad Johnson. I'll attempt to give you an overview of where I believe we are on this project and speak a little bit about what is going on. This site originally was zoned, the total site, for 324 units and during the original process back in 1989 as we started through the city, the city adopted a very restrictive zoning code relative to any type of housing requirement. In any district you'll see that you have to have 2 car garages per house for sale. We came back later on, 3 years later with the project that we believed was the correct one for this one. At the time there had been no successful townhomes sold in Chanhassen and there was, and still is, as Nancy has said, a need for rental housing in Chanhassen. And so as we went through there we ended up with a project that was approximately half townhomes and I won't say a low end but they were at an entry level pricing because that's all we were, this was before Byerly's. We all felt that never could be sold here and that project has been very successful. And during that period of time, for your information, the townhome market, primarily for empty nesters, and non-traditional families which is just about everybody without kids, and most of you probably. We found that the market has increased in Chanhassen for the townhome type. We probably still have a shortage of the next level of townhomes. I believe there's only one project currently fulfilling that need. We're trying to get another one going in a much higher price range, $150-250. This, we have conceived that we can now market in Chanhassen a townhome project between $130-$150,000.00, and maybe up to $160,000.00. In real life you'd probably get more but that's what we're proposing. At the time we did the original project, we could not conceive selling that price range and so we went to the rental approach. If you recall, we had 60 units like that and if that was to appear, we were hoping that we may never get it sold and that was kind of the idea. The reverse happened on the rental. There still is a demand for rental here in the city but our costs of development of rental in Chanhassen are extremely high. Mancino: Property taxes. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Brad Johnson: Back to because of many of the ordinances. They don't allow detached garages. They don't allow, and I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just very expensive to build a unit here. In addition to that, because of the timing, not because of the city. The city's been very cooperative, and at one moment in life probably we could have built those rental units. And that was when the interest rates were at 7 1/4%. And we couldn't get the project through the FHA. It took us 2 years. By the time we had gotten it through, the project had become unfeasible, again because of the rental level hadn't, if you recall rents hadn't really started going up 2 years ago. They just started going up recently now. No matter what, because we needed a rent level pretty close to $900.00 to $1,100.00 per unit to make them work. They probably could have gotten that rent today but...and now with the interest rates, it's just a very tough thing to have happened. So sooner or later you have to come up with something and Mr. Johnson of Dean R. Johnson has been very successful with the first one. Feels comfortable. I think he's come up with, and we'll go through that...so that's kind of some history. In the process, as some of you recall, we had a real battle with the neighbors getting the approval of this project because simply they do look right at it and there are some very valuable trees and those kinds of issues. ...we answered most of them at the time we got the rental approved. We have taken pretty much the layout of the rental and then adapted it what you're proposing and we have been very concerned about the concern of the neighbors and the community as far as preservation of the trees. And so the road system and everything are very similar. It is a different unit that we're coming with because the ones that were down the hillside just happen to have the garages out in front so it adds about 20 feet and...garages as a tuck under out in front because most of the people that are going to pay this type of money would prefer not to walk up some stairs to get to their main level, as we do in the other units. And these are natural walkouts so there have been some... We've gone from 324 units on the total site down to approximately 210 so we're well below what the guided of density of 12 units per acre is. On this particular site, we had approved 104 rental units. We're proposing to be one for sale. We always kind of kid the neighbors, and we actually get along with the neighbors but they're saying now they want to have, what did you say, 27 eyes looking at you. Two pairs. Before you had 44 or 50 so we've actually decreased the presence of people on the hill. We met with the city and David and Sharmin and Kate and we made some changes on the project, and we've actually moved everything up the hill as much as we could. The next thing is we had a meeting with the community representative...and they were concerned about things like lights, and as you recall, most of the people are concerned about lights and you can put lights down like we do in all the shopping centers around here and they just don't have the glaring light. And that can be arranged. They were concerned about the trees so in our presentation we'll deal with that issue as to where they are and even ask any questions about that. They're concerned about more trees and we've added more. They wanted to see how we looked compared to the other one tonight. I think in general we've been trying to answer and change as much as we can within the buildable area. You know we still have to get in and out of it and as Dave just 34 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 pointed out, we've got to sprinkle a couple of the buildings now because there are some grades in there that we're better off not destroying. And so we're going to sprinkler some buildings and pretty much the report that you've gotten from the staff, we agree with. So we're at the point where the staff has looked at the project. I believe they, as much as they can be, are for it. We've tried to meet some of your new things. We've got a model. We actually have changed the plan after the model was done. You know moved certain things up and maybe Kirk, you can show them what we've done there so, but the idea is there. And that's kind of where we are so Dean's here. Dean Johnson who will be the developer and is the owner of the site but the main presentation will be done by Kirk Valette who did the original architecture for the original plan. He is involved in the design of these buildings. And then Bill Dolan who is the engineer and it more aware of and I don't know if you have a solution but at least you could say what we are doing relative to this tree issue and the site issue so those are the two things I think we want to call and I'd like to have Kirk come up here now and be happy to answer questions. I want to point out also, because I can see this happening, that we are simply here to have this site approved as planned and I believe all we're doing is shifting density over to the other parcel. But we're not doing a site plan... involved in what this looks like, and I think what the staff was trying to say is we're not, that's not our mission at this time. We're just shifting density over and I would believe that over time, between the neighborhood and the staff and the senior community, somebody will work out a way of getting the building built. But I think it's going to be one of those that will take a little time. That's my opinion. So Kirk, do you want to take over. Kirk Valette: I'm Kirk Valette with BRW Ellness Architects and we did the original plans that were approved in '92. The buildings that we're proposing now, although it looks like the mass on the north side of the buildings are similar in length, the height actually goes down because the buildings that are on the north side are this type of building and the previous buildings, the rental buildings on that side were 2 and 3 story buildings. Predominantly 3 story. The new buildings now are 2 stories high with a small area of 3 stories. So the actual height of the buildings on that north side will actually be a little less than what the rental housing was going to be. Mancino: Kirk, is this the same that you just showed? These are B. Kirk Valette: No. Those are the ones that are up more in the center of the site. The one that I just showed, I'm sorry. I don't remember the A and the B. Aanenson: It's A. Kirk Valette: A. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Mancino: I have from the staff report all the B's on the north side. According to the staff report. Of Kimberly Lane. So I'm just trying to get a feel for, and that is what I'm assuming is this. Kirk Valette: It's the A. Mancino: Well according to the staff report, the A is on the, all A's are on there, or maybe I should add this. 19 units of A's and they're all on the south side of Kimberly Lane, not going down the hill. I color coded them. Al-Jaff: A is to the north. Where you have steeper elevations. And B is to the south where you have flatter elevations. Mancino: So Sharmin, I'm sorry to raise this right at this point but I want to track with you as you're talking. I'm sorry. On page 5 of the staff report, when you list those lots 1, 4, 5. So if I looked at 1, 4 and 5, I listed those as B's. Was I incorrect? And maybe I should have reversed them. Kirk Valette: The first two would be actually building A. Mancino: Okay. So there are going to be more building A's. There's going to be 32 of those units and 19 of B's. Brad Johnson: 32 of the A's. Mancino: 32 A's and 19 B's and the A's will be, what I have that are green on this whole north side and the A's are going to be more towards the street. Santa Vera is it? Kirk Valette: No. These are the ones that occur there, correct. Mancino: Okay, so it's in reverse than what's in the staff report. Kirk Valette: Right. Mancino: Okay, thank you. That's my frame of thinking, thank you. Kirk Valette: I think the other thing about the units now is they lay out on the street side, is that there's a little more variation because we have less density on the units so there's more variation in providing garages with insets for the entryways. So there's a little more of a third dimension than there was on the rental units, which were more two dimensional because we 36 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 had to get the quantity of parking that was involved with those units. I think those are I think two big differences and very important differences on this plan and mostly just the scale on the north sides of the buildings and the scales of the building as a whole just being broken down because there are fewer. And with the townhouses, you start looking for more variety... Scott: Any other questions or comments? Mancino: Yeah Kirk, how do you respond to staffs recommendation that you vary some of the road? Is that something that you want to respond to and I think it's in recommendation number, Sharmin do you know where you put, you wanted them to vary some of the outside appearance of A and B? Al-Jaff: It would be number 4. Mancino: Number 4. The townhome units shall conform to the design architecture as proposed by the applicant. Introduce some variation among buildings facing north with the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entryways, adding dormers or color. And I guess I would put and color there. Do you want to respond? Brad Johnson: We've talked it over. That's why we said we've agreed with the staff report. The only thing we would like to do is just look to have you authorize us to work that out with the staff, because it's kind of difficult in this kind of a group to plan a building but I think working with the staff, we can come up with a variance in both color and some on the outside and Dean's got some ideas on how to do that so. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Brad Johnson: If there aren't any other questions of the architecture, I'll deal with the site plan and Bill, do you want to go through that? Bill Dolan: My name is Bill Dolan with Meadowood Engineering. I've been the engineer on this project from the beginning and so I'm familiar with it. What I'm trying to do, first of all let me say from an engineering standpoint we also are in agreement with all the staff and the recommendations but I just tried to pick out the engineering recommendations and just give a brief comment. The first one would be number 8, and that talks about putting in a turn around on Kelly Street... The parking spaces that are required are 9. We now have 21 as the visitor parking. We are going to put a small turn around on the end of Kelly Street and eliminate two parking stalls there. However, we cannot make a turn around large enough for the fire engine to turn around, and the end of the street is at about a 3 1/2% grade which is a little steep for a fire engine if you start backing up and trying to do those kinds of things to 37 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 turn around. So we decided just to put a small turn around in there and eliminate 2 parking stalls and then we will go to the sprinkling of the units which was the alternate that the Fire Chief had in his recommendations. And with that change and with the change down on Lot 49, where the staff said that they would like to have an additional driveway, we don't have any problem with the driveway but that will eliminate 2 parking stalls as they pointed out in their report. And that would reduce us then to a total of 17 parking stalls for visitors and again required is 9, so we are almost double so we feel we have adequate parking provided. Item 10 then continues on with some of the things that the Fire Marshal wanted and we covered the first part of that and he asked for 2 additional hydrants, which...and again the buildings will be sprinkled. Item 12 talks about the grading plans and show floor elevations and the standard building types and so on and this is from the Building Inspection Department and we have now included all those various elevations on our plans and have them on here. And item 13 is our typical...where we said that we're going to grade against the trees and away from it so that was... You caught us on that one. Let's see. Oh yeah, the erosion control plans do show that the Type III fence will be all along that... And we have included the city's standards plates in our plans and so on. Now, perhaps we can talk a little bit about the grading and I think the model is an excellent example on how the grading, even though we have split these two units off of here so we don't have the 6 units. Basically we only have 4 and these 2 units are brought over here to reduce the impact of the building. But what happens on this side is of course you've got a very steep slope and we're building the building down to match the existing ground. We're not going to grade on the outside of the building. We're not going to grade on the outside of the building. We have increased the basement elevations from the standard 8 foot to 9 foot. In some cases along here we have 10 foot... from floor to ceiling. Then if we have, we have a couple places where we have a draw here. Right on this corner we have a spot and right on this corner we have a spot and this corner we have a spot where there is about 3 or 4 feet from the basement floor, when you actually put a stake in the basement floor elevation to the existing ground. What we will do in that case is we will take the block work and building face right down to natural ground and then we will go right down from that for our 40 feet, not grading on the outside of the building so the building will just go right down. But most of these buildings now, these buildings, these buildings, this building, this building, the two units in these buildings here, with the entries from 8 to 9 to 10 foot. The basements do match very close to the elevation of the outside. Now when we do that, we come down between the buildings, we have to in some cases, where we have this draw here, in this area, we have in some cases pick up that elevation change because we don't want to grade beyond the buildings. So in those cases we have a little 4 foot retaining walls that run between the buildings here and they'll show on the grading plan and I think there's 1, 2 and 3 of those. There's one in here by this big oak tree, and I think there's one here and maybe over here. But anyway, that has to be done so that we do not grade beyond the line and that's very important because this environment out here is something we want to save. And we can look at our tree preservation plan here, first of all 38 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 at these pictures here are of the trees on the site. While I'm talking I'll pass some of those. They're kind of hard to see from a distance so I'll pass some of those around for you to look at while I'm talking about the trees. And we'll just talk about the...here which is over here. Your new ordinance, which was not in effect when we did the first plan but it's a strange thing. The first plan saved the same trees that we are now saving, except one. The first plan said we were going to save this brown tree up here and we're now going to take it, and I'm really not sure that we could have saved it in the first place. But we said we were going to save it but now we're taking it. The brown trees are the ones that are going. The green, dark greens are the ones that we're saving. Now we had an original canopy of 37% and after the removal of the trees, we still have 25% which meets your ordinance. And after we landscape again, the credits we get for the new landscaping plan, which we'll go through in a moment, we come back to 44% canopy coverage which is more than we had originally so this is a, from a canopy standpoint and vegetation standpoint when the project is done, is going to be better than it was. So we were talking about trees and I wanted to point out that this tree is the tree that is going to go and it's a big, old oak tree. It's one we'd like to save but it's going to go now but it's the only one and actually there's probably one in here I think. It's a small one. I guess it's down here that we're going to save that we weren't going to save originally. But the point is, that the canopy is there. We meet your canopy ordinance. We met it in the first place but we didn't have to but ever since we first started on the hillside and working with the hillside, the idea was, and I think Nancy was talking about it, eluding to it earlier that the apartments were designed to try to preserve the hillside and indeed they were. And so was this project. This project only takes out one tree different. Okay now, we'll turn this over and we'll talk about the trees and the landscaping. Now this is the landscaping plan. Here again the existing trees that are shown out here. Now, we met with the neighbors here. I wasn't at the meeting but when they came back they told us that there were a couple of open spots on the plan where the existing trees were not really covering. See the existing trees here do a wonderful job of covering these units and here they do a good job, as you can see that from the photographs but here there was a gap and so in this spot we have added 7 pine trees, 6 feet high to start the screening of this particular open spot here. And then there was a couple other open spots, one here which was open and there were 3 trees there and then we've added 7 trees down here to screen that area which was opened from the Powers Boulevard, back across. There were some trees down here but these are quite a bit lower and down along the wetlands there and then this hillside here looks bare so we added some trees to screen that. Now the question was asked at the neighborhood meeting, how does our landscape plan compare to what was proposed in 1992. And we took out our other landscaping plan and we compared them. And in comparison is this. On Santa Vera Drive, the original plan had 46 plantings along Santa Vera Drive. We now have 85. The original plan had 27 plantings along this internal plan. This long internal drive here and we now have 26. The original plan had 27 pine trees located along the outside of the, the perimeter of the plan on the hillside. We now have provided 19 in these open spaces, okay. And then we had 39 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 originally from the old plan, when we finished Phase I, we planted 9 pine trees out there and you can see them on some of those photographs. And those are going to be moved and situated to fit the new layout here so that they will still remain on the outside. So when you add the 9 to the 19, we get 28 which compares to the 27, that was our original. So in each case we're within a tree. One over, one under except on Santa Vera Drive and because this is now for sale, we felt that the units along the outside here needed to be screened from Santa Vera Drive and so that's why we have the additional plantings out there. More plantings than we had originally. So that these for sale units here can be screened and make this area a little more private. I think that pretty well covers everything that I wanted to talk about, and I think the staff report referred to getting the final drainage calculations for the project, which of course we will supply them. But I will point out that when the project was apartments, there was more impervious area than there is now because of the extensive parking and the drainage that was designed in Santa Vera Avenue and going down to the ponds here, was not designed on the basis of that project being apartments which had more impervious area, therefore more runoff. So the new calculations will be looking at that. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. Scott: Any questions? Thank you sir. Is there anybody else from the development team who would like to speak? Okay. This is a public hearing, and if I may get a motion to open the public hearing. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Anyone from the general public who wishes to speak, please step up and identify yourself. Give us your address and let us know what you have to say. Tim Anderson: Hi. My name is Tim Anderson. I live at 7550 Canyon Curve, just to the north of the proposed development. First of all I'd like to say I welcome the change in the plan from the higher density apartments to the residential, or the owner occupied townhomes. I also welcome having the senior housing...property. But I guess a couple issues that I'd like to address tonight. One is the footprint of the buildings to the north. I know Sharmin had, put together a couple of overheads that overlaid that previous development which was apartments on top of the new proposed development. I guess I'd just like to show is that we had some concerns that the buildings as they're planned now are closer, farther down the hill and closer to our property than we were previously. It appears to be well, at least 10 to 20 feet in some cases, and that does not include the deck that could be put on the units. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: Dave, just a question from a deck standpoint. Given the grades that we have on the north side of this development, would that be quite an undertaking to be able to put a deck out of the back of some of these things? You deck builder you. Hempel: I'm no deck builder Mr. Chairman, but I have seen decks which are on... Scott: Pretty scary? Hempel: They're probably not 20 x 20 foot decks. A small deck. Scott: So you're thinking that from a cost standpoint they would probably be relatively small? Just because of the kind of California terrain. Aanenson: Well I do think that if that's an issue, then we should we clarify that because we came up with this problem before when we were under the assumption, that because they included porches we wouldn't see decks, and all of a sudden decks appeared. They were still within the setbacks. So I think if that is an issue to the neighbors, we should try to come to some resolution. That if they are decks, they be a certain size or they maintain a certain setback because if they're under the assumption that they won't be, or they'll only be small, and some big one comes in and they're still within the setback so I think if it is an issue, that we should try to get some concurrence on that. Kirk Vallette: The decks are 8 x 10. Aanenson: You may want to make that condition, that that be the only size or something. Scott: Mr. Anderson, are you representing the neighbors? Tim Anderson: I'm representing myself... Scott: Okay. Tim Anderson: Is it possible to put that overhead on? Another thing to make note of, another thing of concern is that even though there's less units, that they're actually closer together. In the previously proposed plan the.._.were actually set apart a farther distance. And now it's going to give an appearance of a train going all the way on the hillside. And... discuss it, that was an issue. I know the City Council, that they didn't want the appearance of a train going all the way up along the ridge. The hillside but part of the, that was addressed in some part because they took out, ended up taking out some units and ended up trying to take out one of the buildings...that's a concern I would like to see addressed. On possibly 41 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 either pulling the buildings back, taking out a couple of units, whatever that may take. Or additional landscaping or such...I'd like to see if there is a possible...separating somehow. And I think there was one other thing I wanted to discuss was that the previous development included a conservation easement to go up to the buildings and I haven't heard any discussion on that. If that's going to be included and at what point, where on the property will that occur on the conservation where there won't be any type of lawn maintenance and such. I know Karen had a concern about the senior housing. I'd like to just mention before I leave here is that we are concerned about the size of the building. We, but like I say, we really welcome having seniors as neighbors and I guess I have one question I have. Is, are we locked into 70 units up there? Can it be 60 units or whatever? If this is approved tonight as is, is the city bound to 70 units of senior housing on that property or can the density change? Either it be moving senior housing to another location or just putting less in that parcel. Scott: Well if this moves forward as is, basically we've committed to a density transfer which will allow for 70 units to be placed on the outlot that's on Santa Vera and Kerber so the die basically would be cast. From what my understanding is, is that the number 70 came from a financial model relative to the financial success of the project so. Tim Anderson: I don't want to, I know...other than the densities. Scott: But they are tied together basically because there's a density transfer. Tim Anderson: Yes, I understand that. I don't, I guess I have a fear that it's implied now that once this is approved, that approval could go ahead and build 70 units up on the hill. I guess is that what's going to happen? Aanenson: Well just the density transfer, as I indicated. They would still have to go through site plan review so it would still come back and there'd be a hearing on that for you to comment on the design and the city certainly wants to work with the neighbors on that issue. Tim Anderson: That's a big concern. I guess one thing I'd like to see, again this isn't related. I apologize...is that when this comes in the next few months, they have an actual photo rendering of the building at various angles, including from our neighborhood be done. I'd truly like putting an image on a photograph so we see exactly what it's going to look like. The Council and the Planning Commission can see it also. Scott: That kind of reminds me of an ordinance we have floating around. Did that actually? Aanenson: Yes, that's an approved ordinance. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: Okay, so that's a requirement. Tim Anderson: Yeah, because I see something like this and it's hard to interpret a drawing. It looks 2 dimensional and this isn't what it looks like when I look out my window. I know they made a good attempt to try to do that but actually on a photo rendition it would be very helpful and more useful. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Dave Callister: My name is Dave Callister. I live at 7540 Canyon Curve, Mr. Chair and Planning Commission members. First of all I was not aware that we would be talking about a senior housing issue tonight so I guess I don't really have any comment on that other than what Mr. Anderson said previously. The size is a concern. I haven't seen anything for tonight but the bulking would be a definite concern. I haven't had a chance to look at the details. Scott: Yeah, the public hearing is for another section but I think because of the nature of the density transfer and what happens here casts the die over there, I think your comments are appropriate. Dave Callister: And with just the specific proposal that's in front of us this evening, I guess I think it's a much better proposal than what we had 2 years ago. The density is lower. The type of units and the type of resident that we're going to see in these units, definitely from a neighbor's perspective is better. So I think there are a lot of good things about this new proposal that the developments have tried to incorporate into it. I do have a couple of concerns. One with the location of the buildings. You've heard this before about creeping down the hill. Apparently, and I've had several discussions with staff and the developer on this and basically what they told me is this is as far, this is where it has to be simply because of the logistics of the site. Given that, I guess I would like to see, if that can't be moved up the hill any further, I would like to see more trees. I know they have indicated there's some pine trees...6 foot pine trees if you're looking up at a hill like this, and you've got a structure of maybe 25 feet, a 6 foot pine tree really doesn't buffer for a few years anyway. So I would like to see, first of all more trees. Second of all, maybe some larger trees in there. And then third, maybe some deciduous trees to cover for some of the other trees that may be lost in the future. So that would be a concern of mine. The last thing that I want to touch on, and we've already touched on many of the things that I have here, would be the construction limits. We talked a lot about this in 1992 about having heavy equipment in sensitive areas around the tree roots and I think last year sometime when they did some drainage improvements, where...down the hill, woke up one morning and all of a sudden there was heavy equipment down there. And the heavy equipment wasn't as much of a shock as the 43 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 footprints through the trail that they had and they knocked over branches from oak trees. They were within probably 3 or 4 feet of the oak trees. Totally disregarding everything we talked about, about staying away from the drip line of the oak trees. Apparently it wasn't the contractor but it was some subcontractor but nonetheless, I would like to see some precaution or some regulation that we could establish that would ensure that the things are adequately fenced off in the case of any damage and I think they have to replace it on a 1.2 to 1 basis or something like that. I don't know if you have any flexibility to increase the penalty but I think it's, especially it's so sensitive in this area with...buffer, that if you knock them down during construction and you say whoops, you knock over a few trees and we'll plant a few 6 footers over here to make up. Scott: There's a couple of ordinances that have come into play since then. The first one being an extremely comprehensive tree preservation ordinance which one of the requirements is that the drip lines of the trees are actually marked by fences. Snow fence which obviously is not going to keep a piece of heavy equipment out but it's a lot different than what we had before where traffic actually could go over the drip line areas. And then another ordinance is, and I'm sure that the developers are aware of this. Is that there's actually some, what we consider to be fairly attention grabbing fines for the damage of erosion control fencing. To summarize that, there's a penalty and then within, I believe it's a 24 hour period of notice by the city, the city will hire a subcontractor to go in and fix the erosion control and charge it back to the developer. So that was something that just went through recently so we feel that we've gotten a little bit more sensitive to those sorts of things. And of course, it's difficult enough as an appointed or elected official to keep track of the ordinances, much less a member of the general public, but just to kind of let you know that these are some of the things that we've done. Dave Callister: That's good to hear. Do you know when that was actually incorporated or when that was adopted? Scott: Well it came through the City Council. Aanenson: The erosion control just got approved like the last month. Dave Callister: The tree preservation. Scott: The tree preservation's been 8 months. Aanenson: The tree preservations been the last year, yeah. Scott: Yeah, something like that. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Dave Callister: ...it's a question of monitoring and I know staff has a lot of work to do. Scott: Well we've actually, one of our newest planners was specifically brought on board for ordinance enforcement purposes so. Dave Callister: Just a concern and I want to make sure it's adequately... Scott: No, appreciate you bringing that up. Dave Callister: That's all I have at this time, thank you. Scott: Good, thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Greg Hromatka: Hello. My name's Greg Hromatka. I live at 7580 Canyon Curve and just... I like the idea of the senior housing. I'm not going to say anything about that. I'd like to deal with the idea of transition. Just with that there...it doesn't seem to flow. I do have a question about how that would be, what the senior housing will be. As an area, the total picture. Is it going to be a fifth or a sixth of the total land area? Aanenson: It's 2 acres. A little over. Al-Jaff: A little over 2 acres. 2.2. Greg Hromatka: Of the total amount. Scott: I guess what is it, 9? Aanenson: Well that's just for this phase. Greg Hromatka: So that's a 1/13 of the total and you've got 70 units on 1/13 of the total space. That's my driving point. Smallest chunk of space with the largest number of units. That's short and sweet. Scott: Good, thank you. Yes ma'am. Mary Anderson: Hi. My name is Mary Anderson and I live at 7550 Canyon Curve. The only point I'd like to make is to reiterate the neighbors' concern of the units coming down the hill. I don't want the commission to think that the neighbors are not concerned because of the numbers that are here. What I'd like to say is this the second time that we've had a public 45 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 hearing that the neighbors were not formally notified. And if there is another public hearing concerning this, we want to make sure. I know when my husband told this to Sharmin, she said we should have gotten something in the mail saying there would be a public hearing and I called...our neighbors today and no one received notice. So that is, this project is a great concern to the neighborhood. There would have been more people here tonight had everyone not known at 5:00. Scott: Well how did you find out? Mary Anderson: When we met with Dean, he mentioned it may be on the agenda tonight and it just clicked in my mind as the 1st so I went can called and sure enough it was. We were told we were notified but no one had gotten the notice. Scott: If I could just ask the, let's see. Mr. Anderson, how did you find out about the meeting tonight? Tim Anderson: I called Sharmin this morning. Scott: Okay, Mr. Hromatka? Greg Hromatka: Neighborhood. Al-Jaffa We did mail out notices to all the neighbors. Mary Anderson: Then why did no one get one? I mean I can see if one family didn't but no one on Canyon or no one right in that area on Canyon Curve received anything. And the last time we went through this...development, the same thing occurred. And I just want to stress that this is a very important issue to the neighborhood and we would have been here in more force and more prepared had we known. Scott: Yeah. I didn't, is there a, I didn't get a notice list in my packet. Aanenson: We can pass it around. We did receive calls so some people did get notice. We did verify, after we received the call, we did verify that notice was sent to that address. Scott: Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes ma'am. Sherol Howard: My name is Sherol Howard. I live at 1005 Pontiac Lane and I'm the Chairperson of the Senior Commission and I've lived in Chanhassen 40 years and I've seen a great many changes take place. And we seniors are pleased with our residence to be built 46 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 here...and we have every confidence that the differences will be able to be worked out for a housing that's very much needed and we have eliminated many locations, and this one seems to fill all our needs. So we're sure you can all work it us for us. Thank you. Scott: Thank you ma'am. Yes sir. John Linforth: John Linforth, 7471 Canyon Curve. Mr. Chairman, the last time we had a meeting on January, on February 15th, excuse me. I asked you if this item was going to be on that program at that time because I had received in the mail a letter to this effect. I should have received a letter saying that it was not on that docket for that evening and I had received no information that it was on the schedule for this evening. I read all the mail that comes into my house. I collect it out of my mailbox. Nothing from the City of Chanhassen arrived at my house anywhere... I would like to ask, or address the issue of where the transition from high density to single family. There is no transition with a large 70 unit structure on a 2 acre lot. You're going directly from 70 units to a single family. There is no transition. It would appear that listening...and all the nuances and what goes on in this procedure but by your approval tonight, you approve it. It sounds like this, at this point is for you to decide whether it goes or whether it doesn't go. The structure that you have in front of you here, if you'll note on the north side of that building, which faces our subdivision. You're looking at something close to 60 feet tall. That is a very, very long structure that they're asking to build. The reason for it to be built there, it's explained to me that it's close to downtown so they can walk to it. Why don't you put 70 apartments facing underneath. Why do you need parking if they're going to be walking? If they can drive, they can put it on something that's more aesthetically pleasing to the marketplace. Finally, this hillside that they wish to put this unit on is a very, very high point in town and to put a very, very tall structure on top of it would be very, very noticeable. It is not a good use of property. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to make any comments? Emily Tischleder: Hi. Emily Tischleder, 185 Pioneer Trail in Chanhassen. And I just want to say that most of the seniors have lived here 30 plus years and now we're in the position where we're ready to sell our homes. We don't need the large homes anymore. We would like to stay in Chanhassen because we have nowhere else to go unless this is built. The City of Chaska has a population approximately the same as Chanhassen. They have two senior units in their city and I was hoping that the City of Chanhassen will consider having...thank you. Scott: Thank you. Any other comments before we close the public hearing? 47 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, would it be proper for us to answer some of these questions? For instance... Scott: Which specific questions do you wish to answer? Brad Johnson: I just want to go through the list. This will just take a second. One thing we should realize, I think what's the setback from the point from the property. What would be the required? Al-Jaff: The ordinance would require 25. Brad Johnson: Okay. We're 225 to 300 feet from their property line. I think we always forget this. Scott: Well that's the setback from the property of your project. Not the setback from the property line of the neighbors, right? Aanenson: That's the property line. Brad Johnson: That's the same number. Aanenson: Yeah. Scott: Okay. Brad Johnson: ...football fields away and 2/3 of a football field away in this case on our project. The problem is the hill and what they see. We will agree that the decks will be no greater than 8 x 10. I think what they've said is they would like to see more landscaping to cover, we'll call under story and some over story trees. We would agree to come in with other trees other than pine trees to fill that area up, wherever it is. Okay. As you can see by the photographs, probably we're talking more about trees underneath than over but we're more than happy to work that out by the time it gets to the Council with the neighbors. There is a, what we'll agree to a conservation and one of the concerns was that we'd agreed not to landscape down the hill...so whatever that would take. Aanenson: I think the intent was to leave it natural so people wouldn't... Brad Johnson: Yeah, but...want it in writing...I think though the heavy equipment thing was a mistake. They were just saying, the guys wasn't supposed to be there. I asked Dean why the Sup wasn't there to make sure the guy wasn't there, and he said they weren't supposed to be 48 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 working there but in the future he'll be fined and that will take care of that. But that's, I think we've apologized for that and we're going to try to make sure that that doesn't happen. But it just, it happened. The guy wasn't supposed to be there. It was one of those days...I think we're more than happy to, we don't want to lose units. The last time we went through this whole thing we kept losing units and we don't see a need for that. I think Dave's suggestion that we try to landscape more and cover up, because they're just worried about what they're seeing and we'll see what we can do. We thought we added some. We can add more. Okay. Scott: Good. Thank you. If you have new information that you'd like to add, please come up. Dave Callister: Dave Callister, 7540 Canyon Curve. This just came up. We were talking about in '92, and I don't know how many of you were around in '92. This is a totally different issue now. The City is apparently going to acquire an outlot with the ponds, for their half of the ponds, is that correct? Hempel: It's already been done. Dave Callister: It's already been done? Okay. One of the conditions of the last PUD was that there was at one time talk about a trail going through there. A paved trail on that slope. Aanenson: That was eliminated a long time ago. Dave Callister: Okay is that, we just want to make sure it doesn't come back. Aanenson: No. I think the intent is, I think that's always been understood that you don't want people back in there. That anything beyond 30 foot beyond the house pad is a no touch zone. No mow and we'll put that language in there. Dave Callister: That's all I wanted, thanks. Scott: Good, thank you. Could I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Mr. Chair, I have a question. And I'd like to hear from other commissioners. I am very concerned that the neighborhood, I mean this is our only time to have a public hearing. We don't have public hearings at City Council, etc. And I'm very concerned that none of the neighbors got notices to come tonight, and I think if this is the only forum for them to speak 49 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 and to say what's on their minds, and I think that we need to make sure that they have that right. And if we didn't offer that to them, I think we need to and I'd just like to hear other people's. If you're as concerned as I am, that maybe we table this and have a public hearing and make sure that the neighbors are notified. Ledvina: I'd like to understand what staff had done and their reaction to what the comments have been. Aanenson: I believe this was noticed at least twice before this, and we pulled it off based on we felt that information that we needed in order to put it on the agenda wasn't here so it was noticed twice before. We had met with a lot of the neighbors, and neighbors were tracking it. Had come in and asked questions. This has been over the last 2 months while this thing has evolved because we've tried to get the development where we felt comfortable coming forward to you. As you see, some of the changes aren't even reflected here. We worked very hard to try to get this where we knew the neighbors' concerns were so there has been a lot of dialogue between the neighbors. Now it's our understanding, there was we know for sure two notices before this. Again, it was tabled as this gentleman indicated at the last meeting. It certainly was our intent to notice everybody again. It's our understanding it was. If it wasn't, it certainly was not any intention. If it wasn't, it was an oversight. Our secretary is responsible for making sure that all public hearings are noticed. It's our understanding that that was done. If it wasn't, we're not aware. Scott: And I think our feeling too is, and I was at the, I'm not going to talk about organized collection. I'll use the City Council meeting as a...to the effect (a), don't people read the newspaper, and (b), don't people do this and we've been doing this for 2 years, so on and so forth. I think we've got a responsibility as elected or appointed officials that even though we're following the rules and we're doing the right things relative to notice, I think it's still, I'd agree with Commissioner Mancino, that it's still incumbent upon us to give that one last shot to let the residents come in. And if we have a couple people here the next time, I think what we would want to do however is, instead of having a full blown public hearing, to do something else because what we don't want to do is we don't want to have the same information come up again to perhaps give people the opportunity who haven't had the chance to speak. I think we understand the issues. I think those are pretty evident and I don't see new issues coming up. Conrad: If that's the case Mr. Chairman, the City Council always holds a public hearing anyway. The point is that we understand the neighbors concerns. I think the people that have been here, were within neighborhood groups. My perception is that the staff has listened to the neighborhood. The developer has listened to the neighborhood. The neighbors have been here. They echo pretty much their concerns. They're the same concerns I heard 50 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 the last time we were putting rental units here. That's not to say that everybody doesn't deserve a public notice. They do. If it didn't happen, they should be notified for the City Council meeting. I don't think I need to have another public hearing to find out more information I guess is what I'm saying. City Council has a public hearing. If they didn't, I would say table it. Mancino: They're not required to are they? Conrad: They're not required to. They always do Nancy. Mancino: They always do. Because I don't know if there's something else that someone may come up and say that I haven't heard tonight. You know I wasn't here previously when this was up in front of the Planning Commission so this is the first time I've heard this and I've heard the neighbors. So, and when I hear that nobody that's here got a notice, I'm concerned. For tonight. Scott: You know there's another, a thought that I had when I was listening to it, and when I look at the list of parties who are involved in this PUD, Carver County HRA. There's tax increment financing dollars. The City is going to get involved. I believe the HRA is going to be bonding for this particular, or at least the senior housing project. We're starting to see I think how PUD's really were designed to work where there's certain things that we want as a community and we're starting to get some players involved. There's one component however that we've been asking for and a PUD really is the only way that we can get, add to it and that's the idea of entry level housing, affordable housing. Whatever you want to call it. I had a discussion with the Mayor about this and kicking around some ideas. Obviously in the day of unfunded mandates and so forth, I think that that's a real issue that we happened to be targeted because of the tax base that we have and I think we're all aware of what the Metropolitan Council's blueprint has to say about their plans for affordable housing in Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Eagan and so forth. And one of the things that I talked to the Mayor about is a concept where in order to gain something that we're also lacking, that either a density trade because obviously you can't put a developer in a situation where they have to take the hit on the sale or rental of market property because obviously our tax structure, our property costs, just won't support this kind of thing. So one of the things that crossed my mind is that what we may want to consider, if you all want to do this, is to try to determine how we could have that affordable housing component introduced here or in another PUD that may be forthcoming. So I wanted to toss that out to see if that's worthwhile considering. Great. If it's not, move on to something else. So I wanted to get your input on that. Ladd. Conrad: I think it's, well I know. It's a good thought Joe and I'd like to review it. I don't think it's fair. When a developer has done this. We just can't do that to anybody. I don't 51 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 care if it's a good project, bad project. You know we've made some commitments to them and they've gone ahead and done some things and then to introduce something new. As valid as that may be, and I really would like to pursue it. Scott: And I figure we can throw it out just because we got the County HRA involved. Conrad: Yeah. I guess I'd like to make sure we address that thing soon because PUD's are probably a good way to do it. But I don't think it applies here. I'd rather not do it here because I don't think that's fair. Scott: Well I wanted to throw it out because it seems like, I mean we may have more of these kinds of opportunities we hope. Conrad: Well again, if we care, we make that a priority. Scott: Is that direction to staff? Conrad: No, no. That's a direction to you. Scott: Well then I'll send that direction to staff. I think since we've talked about this for many, many hours here and we all know what the environment is and at least what I would like to direct staff to do is that, you know what's coming up before we do. If we see a situation where we've got a PUD coming up where there's a mix of different types of housing, I think what needs to happen initially in the conversation with the developer, is introducing that some sort of component. However, it's got to be done in a way where perhaps they get additional density. I mean it's a give and take and it has to make financial sense because we're not going to get any financing for that. And we don't want to mess around with the market, if we don't have to so, take that under advisement. Ron. Conrad: Well there's still the issue at hand. Nancy wants to table this. Mancino: Well not table it. Keep it going. I mean there's another thing besides opening it up completely again so that, I mean we've heard the applicant and we've heard some neighbors but any new. I don't know what it's called. Yeah, I mean I have, when people haven't received notices, or it seems as if they haven't, I have a problem with that. Because by the time you get to City Council, it's done. Ledvina: Well I would agree with Ladd on this one as it relates to the notice. I was here when we went through this initially and. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Mancino: Two years ago? Or three years ago? Ledvina: Two years ago. Three years ago. I think what we have at this point is a proposal that's much more acceptable to the residents. The neighboring residents given the fact that the density has been scaled down for this particular development. I think there's some small issues. While they're important issues but they're resolvable issues as they relate to the conservation easements and some landscaping. I don't know that anything else is going to get driven out of the wood, or whatever. I think that this has been extremely reviewed many times and I think it's in good shape. But that's my feeling. Conrad: This is a great staff report. It's far superior to what we had seen before. It's just, you know if we listened to what the neighbors said before, this is paying attention to it. I think what I'd prefer that we do is move it along. And normally Nancy I'd agree. And normally I like to find out about the lack of notice before we spend 2 hours. We should have killed it and brought it back rather than, you know no matter. Every time you open a public hearing, we're going to get the same input. It's hard to control. You know people want to talk, and I think the neighbors that said we didn't get notice of it, and more people would be here. That's right. They would and I think they still have a great opportunity to make their concerns known at City Council. I wouldn't say that if Council didn't open public hearings but they do and they make, you know. I think we're going to identify the real issues based on the comments and I think if the neighbors want to show their support for their feelings, they will show up and staff will make sure that they noticed. So again, I don't want to dominant this. There are more folks here but I don't really see a reason to bring it back and force citizens to come back at this level. The Council's still going to make their decision and the residents are still going to have the opportunity to talk to them. I'm pretty comfortable pushing it forward. Scott: And you're comfortable with the density transfer? Conrad: Absolutely. I think it's, yeah. Scott: Okay, good. That was another kind of a side issue. Okay. Ron. Nutting: I'm also...to taking it forward. It's not, odds are we probably haven't heard every single issue that all of the neighbors would bring up but I think we've certainly got the significant flavor of what those issues are. And again, there seems to be a steady back and forth between the developers and the neighbors. That's attempting to address the issues. It's always a very difficult process but, and to my limited experience I've always seen public hearings too but I don't know that to the length of Ladd's experience. So I guess we're, Mr. Chair I guess the question is do. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: I guess we'll go for a motion. Conrad: Well I think we should have issues. Mancino: Well no, I think I'm hearing everyone say. I mean I'm still, you know I feel very principally believe that that's the responsibility of the Planning Commission to do it. I'm not saying that I think a lot of issues have been resolved, etc. I just think that there's a time and place that the principal of everybody getting to be at the public hearing and having their say, I just want to preserve that in a very formal way. And that's what we're here to do. So, be it as it may. Scott: Any other discussion? Conrad: Not on that issue. Scott: Another issue then. Conrad: Do you want to just talk in general? Scott: Sure. Conrad: Do you want me to lead it off then? Real quickly. I am impressed with a lot of the things that have transpired. I am impressed with the staff working on this. There's no perfect solution and I think that the residents and the neighbors are always going to have certain concerns. It's a little bit different housing type but again if my memory serves me properly, this is a quantum leap from the housing that we had scheduled to go here. It may not really be in the maybe the best interest in terms of rental. There is a rental need, more than likely. But in terms of a quality product that's going into Chanhassen, this certainly does do it. It may be even an income generator for the city, which is not any of our concern but it's probably such a quality that it's a real asset. I'm really not concerned about decks but I'll let somebody else. You know our setback is so far, I guess I don't get it when we start talking about decks and we're going to limit deck size. I don't understand. I don't know the rules that we're playing with when we start limiting decks. When we're a couple hundred feet away from the property line or whatever. I like what the developer said in terms of the lack of disturbing the grading. I do agree with the density transfer. It does lock us in however to the density going to the other area but I'm pretty comfortable with that at this point in time. The conservation easement, I think we should put in. The lighting, so it's directed down, I think we should put in. I think that's it. I really have very few comments on the actual items in the staff report other than the one that Dave wanted to delete. I guess I'm just approaching 54 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 it from where we were, and from where we were 2 years ago, and what we approved, this is a better project. Scott: Good, Matt. Ledvina: Looking at the density issue. I think this is a very good site for the senior housing project and I would definitely support the density transfer. The city in conjunction with the Senior Commission has been working very diligently to find a site and when you look at all the work that they've done to look at sites and evaluate them and I know there's been actual field trips and combing the city essentially to find a site that meets their needs and I think they've found one here, and I think it will work out very well. I think in terms of the buffering and the transition, it's essentially on the corner of Santa Vera and Kerber. There is buffering to the north with the locations of those ponds and trees, etc. You can talk about a transition but if you have appropriate buffering, that specific density transition is not necessary, in my opinion. I think that type of density will work at that location. Looking specifically at the project that's in front of us, I have some questions about the layout of the buildings. Where we have the apartment buildings on the south. Let me back up a little bit. I know we had two interior roads and I know we had double frontage when we were looking at double frontage on the buildings. When we were looking at the apartment buildings but we have double frontages now for these townhomes and that concerns me a little bit. I don't know of instances where we really want to do that, especially when you have decks and those kinds of things off the back and we're 30 feet from a roadway. Can you address that? Aanenson: Well that's where the setback, Sharmin indicated is 25 feet so that would be obviously a prohibitor as far as putting an additional deck on there and I believe the applicant spoke to the fact that that's why they also want to put additional landscaping along Santa Vera to buffer that. Ledvina: Well Santa Vera, yes. But the interior I'm speaking. I just don't like the looks of that type of double frontage. I think it's really tight in there but the backs of those homes and the street, Kerber Lane in specific, the backs of the homes that will be constructed on the north side of Kelly Court. Just those units 28 to essentially 38. Those 10 units. I think there's something that's not quite right there and I don't know what we can do about it or what your comments might be. Aanenson: I guess I would compare it similarly to what's already there right now with the 8 units. You've got the 4 facing each other. It's a similar type thing. I mean there's just a driveway between them and they're facing each other and that's I guess the nature of the beast when you're looking at a townhome type product. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Ledvina: That they're facing each other, are you saying there's not a street in the back of them, is there? Aanenson: Well it's the driveway approach. So you'd have, here. Put this one up. That's the existing, right now we've got the driveway going between those units so you've got 4 units facing each other. Actually 8 units. Ledvina: Could you point to the unit? Mancino: This is what's behind Byerly's right now. Aanenson: These are the units that are built right now. So right now there's a driveway that comes down all the way to the end. So there's decks on these, and these 4 units all face either other. Ledvina: But those are 8 units a piece. They don't have any rear to them. But there's no rear to the home. Aanenson: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. So that's really not the same kind of thing. I guess I'm thinking of it in terms of a detached situation. I know in a detached situation we'd say no way. That's not acceptable. And I know this is a little different scenario but at the same time, people will be using those back yards, you know. Well, maybe I should ask the applicant. Are there walkouts on the backs of those buildings? Bill Dolan: Yes, those are walkout units and they do face that street down there. On townhomes what you try to do is give them room for their patio and then as you might have noticed, some of the patios on the existing townhouses as they go up the street. But the patios do come out. They have a fence. So what will happen on those units that face that street where those patios come out, they'll be fenced so they don't bang the street right up to them. And they are, actually they were a little closer to the street and staff and so we talked about it and we decided we could move back a little. I think that we will come back to where they're 20-25 feet from the street there now. With the fencing, we feel that will be satisfactory. Now the reason they are faced that way is because, you know the side and every...it's a big deal and it goes up to the top of the hill. So you can't just shave the top of the hill off. You have to build into it... Ledvina: Right. No, I understand that. I guess I'm just seeing that the distance between the back of the homes and in Kerber Lane, or Kimberly Lane, I'm sorry. It's extremely tight. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Bill Dolan: No question about it. We will be fencing those patios. Ledvina: And then that raises another issue. Do we want fences along Kerber Lane? How is that going to look in terms of the streetscape? Bill Dolan: Well, that's typically what we do with those and maybe it's a good thing we talk about that now if you don't particularly want them. But that's typically how we do that to provide some privacy for people. And the fence is typically right at the end of the patio, which is like...and then the grass would go down the street. Ledvina: Right. Well, I don't know if I've got a solution for that other than to say that things are too tight in there and I know that things have been tighten up to bring units away from the hill and that's a very strong objective but I'm thinking about our future residents that will live along this street and what they're going to have in terms of their streetscape. I guess my opinion would be that I certainly wouldn't want to see fences along there. I'd rather see that be, it would have to be heavily landscaped. I don't know if you can even stick a berm in there and landscape the berm. I think that might be real difficult. But the way I see it now, I don't really like it. Bill Dolan: ...say we don't build lot fences there, I guess we do that typically with our patios now. We have on the other projects. Ledvina: Right, okay. I'll let some of the other commissioners comment on that. I think the units on the north side, they're okay. I guess some of them are fairly tight. There's about 15 to 20 feet in some instances. Maybe even less. Like between Units 11 and 10. And then again on the south side they get tight in spots as well. I don't know solutions other than reducing the number of buildings in terms of that feeling of tightness. I guess we've got a piece of land and we talk about potential density of x number of units, whether it's 9 or 12. I think when you look at the usable acreage, you still have to make sure that even though you're at a density of 6 or 9 or whatever it happens to be, that what you have in the area that you're developing, really works. I'm not saying this doesn't work but I think there's got to be some fine tuning that's able to be done to help this out a little bit. I don't really know what that is right now but I'm open for suggestions on that. Questions on the conservation easement. Did we suggest that it would be 30 feet from the rear of the, or 30 feet from the building along the north side? Is that how it was laid out? Aanenson: Correct. I think it was always the intent of the neighbors that that part be left in a natural area. I guess their concern was that you have people end up mowing or planting gardens and pretty soon it's down. They've taken out vegetation. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Ledvina: Can we add it as a condition? Aanenson: Sure. I think the developer's agreed to that. Bill Dolan: No problem. We expected that. Ledvina: Okay. Okay. Bill Dolan: Typically townhouse people, other than their own patio. See they don't mow the grass anyway. So that's common grounds so. Ledvina: Yeah. I wouldn't want to. I mean...but just a message, or just a comment about the situation with the decks. I would support putting in a condition limiting the size of the decks to 80 square feet. And the reason that I would do that is I think you talked about this earlier. If you build off the back, you're going to have these structures. You know, even though they are several hundred feet from the neighboring properties, you're going to have these posts and things like that, that are 20 feet long to get the footings down into, down the side of the hill so I think 80 square feet is usable space and it also will keep them fairly close to the ground. So I would support that. Well I think that's it for me right now. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: Let me start with saying that density transfer and to the senior housing, I'm in full support of. I am a little concerned about knowing there are going to be 70 units and not seeing a layout of them and how it's all going to work. I mean I have some concern but there's no question that I do fully support the senior housing and in that location. I think it's been worked out well. One of the questions Matt, or somebody brought up about the backs of those townhomes on Kelly Court which will back up to Kimberly Lane. Just a suggestion. Can you shorten the driveway at all so that you have a little bit more room to do some berming and some landscaping behind the patios? Bill Dolan: On the other side? We will shorten it as much as we possibly can. Aanenson: We looked at that already. Mancino: Is that something that helps? Aanenson: We tried to condense this because when it first came in we were concerned about how far down the hill. We are also concerned that we have enough parking when visitors are there that we're not blocking the street. Just to respond further back to Matt's concern. I 58 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 agree, it's a concern and we looked at this as a product but I don't think that it's any different than we looked at on Mission Hills and the one we most recently looked at on Autumn Ridge. We have a few places where this is a private street. And typically they're not, people aren't buying these for the yard. I understand what your concern is but we tried to take those units and bring them up the hill and we've condensed them as much as we can and still allow where we've got enough space for people to park in the driveway. We looked at that and believe me, that's why this was noticed twice before it came here because we've kept trying to revise it and crunch it as tight as we can get it and still make the numbers work. But I understand your issue. But we want to make sure we've got driveways that cars can park in, because there's no parking on a private street. There's no parking. So we have to make sure that we do have enough parking in there that we can get emergency vehicles through so. If there is room to look at it but I think we're pretty tight. Bill Dolan: Oh we are. Obviously if there's anything that we can do, we'll work it out with staff. We've been working with them all along. Mancino: And the only other suggestion that I would make on top of Matt's is, I would favor a more densely vegetated area versus a fence. A privacy fence. Now, I don't know if that means the people can still put up a privacy fence if they want to or not, but at any rate. Ledvina: Well I don't know. Aanenson: It's a PUD. You can make it a condition of the PUD. Ledvina: I think fences along that street would be very unattractive and I would support making that a condition. Eliminating the use of fences. Mancino: Okay. Bill Dolan: You're suggesting use vegetation instead? Ledvina: Yes. If they want to achieve screening, that they use vegetation and landscaping to provide that screening. Mancino: I'd like to make the comment that I think that the applicant has done a wonderful job of, extraordinary job of trying to preserve as many of the oaks, the white oaks as possible. Building retaining walls, etc so I am very glad about that. One of the things that I would suggest to city staff is, is that during this time of construction, which is you know, the oaks are very susceptible and very fragile, that our forestry intern spend some extra time...that she visits the site and makes sure that everything is going well. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Bill Dolan: ...you mentioned that. The environmental laws that are now getting passed and the tree ordinance and so on that you have passed in the last few years and so on, we're taking note of that as to design and so on and so forth...and that's what happened and this gentlemen was talking about, what he doesn't know that before we got through with that project, I personally fined that fellow. But now he's learning, okay. And now we have fences. We fence those areas and so on and so forth but until we all get in step with everything... Mancino: Okay. On recommendation number 2, I would just like to add to change Lot 52 to Outlot A. I would like to also add the line, this outlot can never be built upon. Because I think outlots can be built on. I mean we've built on. Al-Jaff: No, they can't. Mancino: Oh they can't? Aren't we building on an outlot right now? Aanenson: Well it'd have to come back and get...we're just doing the preliminary plat right now. Mancino: Oh! So we don't need to add on that? Aanenson: No. Scott: Do you have any questions, specific questions for the applicant because you've been standing there. Bill Dolan: Oh, that's alright. Mancino: No, I don't. Scott: This is kind of more of a discussion time for the commissioners so, have a seat. Mancino: Sharmin, about the height of buildings. Where do we measure the height of the building? For instance, there are some buildings that I have seen that look over 40 feet tall to me in Chanhassen and that is, I mean like on the townhouses that are going to be on the north side of Kimberly Lane and the basements are going to be 9 or 10 feet tall. Do we, is the height at the lowest building point? Al-Jaff: We're actually taking average between the heights and the...elevations. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Mancino: It's an average, okay. So there are, that is why there are buildings that are taller than, I thought you went to the lowest. So what will the building heights of these be from the lowest level? Do you have any idea? Do you have any idea of the product? Kirk Vallette: From this point of the roof...will be about 35 feet, even on the back side. That's the mid-point of the roof. Mancino: Is that here or is that at the peak? Kirk Valette: No, it's not at the peak. It would be halfway between those two. A vertical distance would be right... Mancino: And that's about 35? Kirk Valette: 35... Mancino: Okay. The only other suggestion that I would like to make is that in number 4, I would like to add, not or color but and color so that we do have a variation in color between the townhomes. And also that if the electrical, and I'm thinking of Oak Ponds right now. If the electrical from the 4 units are going to come together in one place and be on the outside of the unit, that that be covered. Boxed in. Because one of the things that I notice on Oak Ponds as I drive through there is that all the electrical faces to the streets and I would like to camouflage or hide. Aanenson: We'd have to check on what we can do as far as building code because that's the power panel box. There are specific. Mancino: They're actually attached to the units? Aanenson: Right. There are specific codes as far as height but we can certainly check on that and see what you can screen it and landscaping wise. Mancino: Yes, it can be landscaping but it would be year round landscaping. Thank you. Those are all my comments. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I'm also in support of the density transfer. Also to echo the comments about the conservation easement. The lighting issue. Decks and also Matt's and Nancy's comments with regards to the privacy fences. We get into the subject of transition here and I think 61 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 really the main issue I see for transition is really the screening and the buffering in terms of, it appears to be that there's a good back and forth going on with the developer to put in some additional trees and so forth. Like it or not, the distance is some element of transition and in the process, and that is my perspective and so, I think any additional cooperation between the two sides with respect to the screening and the height and so forth is really what I see as being one of the key issues. So other than that I would support the additions that have been discussed thus far. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Amendment to PUD #92-3, preliminary plat to subdivide 8.5 acres into 51 lots and one outlot and Site Plan Review #95-3 as shown on the plans dated February 16, 1995 and February 21, 1995, and subject to the following conditions. Outlined in the staff report with the following changes and additions. Elimination of condition number 1. Modify condition number 4 to change the second sentence to read, introduce some variation among buildings facing north through the shape, eliminate facing north. Introduce some variation among buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers and color. The rest will read as stated. Condition number 12. Should I go through everything? Aanenson: We've got them modified. Ledvina: Okay. Condition number 12 to read per the recommendations identified in memorandum dated March 1, 1995 from Steve Kirchman to Sharmin Al-Jaff, subject 92-3 PUD. Okay. An addition of condition number 27. The lighting shall meet the maximum intensity permitted at the property boundaries. The maximum permitted by ordinance. Number 28. The size of the decks shall be limited to 80 square feet. Number 29. Conservation easement shall be established beyond 30 feet of the rear of the buildings along the north side of the development. Condition number 30. Fencing for screening is not allowed within the development. Condition number 31. The applicant shall provide additional landscaping to account for the expansion of the footprint down the hill and to provide additional vegetation in areas acceptable to staff. Condition number 32. Preliminary plat shall be public noticed for the City Council meeting. Conrad: I second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we pass along the staffs recommendation as modified. Is there any discussion? 62 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of an amendment to PUD #92-3, preliminary plat to subdivide 8.5 acres into 51 lots and one outlot and Site Plan Review #95-3, as shown on the plans dated February 16, 1995 and February 21, 1995, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Change Lot 52 to Outlot A. 2. Amend the PUD contract to permit the transfer of density within the development of Oak Pond. 3. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached renderings. Introduce some variation among buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, and color. Introduce new elements to break up the large roof span on Building B. 4. The developer shall incorporate street lights into the overall development plans. Street lights shall be placed along the interior streets and intersections with Santa Vera Drive. The plans shall be revised and submitted to staff for review and approval. 5. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street and utilities. 6. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication as required by ordinance. 7. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units. 8. Fencing shall be placed around the stand of trees to minimize impact during construction. Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a 1.2 canopy basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff. 9. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Provide an approved turn-around at the west end of Kelly Court or sprinkler units beyond 150 feet from the intersection of Kelly Court and Santa Vera Drive. b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed along Kimberly Lane and Kelly Court at 75 foot intervals by the applicant. Pursuant to City Policy #06-1991. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 c. Turning radii on the private streets shall be approved by City Engineering and Fire Marshal. d. Additional fire hydrants will be required at the east entrance to Kelly Lane off Santa Vera Drive, also at the east entrance to Kelly Court off Santa Vera Drive and between Lots 29 and 30. e. A ten (10) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 10. The applicant shall enter into a PUD contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 11. The applicant shall comply with the Building Officials recommendations as outlined in the memo from Steve Kirchman to Sharmin Al-Jaff, dated March 1, 1995. 12. On Sheet 6 of 10, the plans indicate a definition of the construction limit fencing that states "...snow fence shall be constructed to keep all manner construction activity in the canopy area..." The wording should be changed to read "...snow fence shall be constructed to keep all manner construction activity out of the canopy area..." 13. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained along the entire westerly perimeter of the construction limits adjacent to the wetlands. Type I erosion control fence may be used on other areas. The applicant should be aware of that additional erosion control may be required behind the curb on the south side of Kimberly Lane. 14. All areas disturbed during site development shall be immediately restored with seed and mulch, sod and/or wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading is completed unless the City Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All disturbed slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. In any case, all disturbed areas must be restored before November 15, 1995. 15. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The construction plans are subject to a final City review and approval process. Upon completion of the street and utility improvements, the applicant shall supply the City with as-built, mylar drawings. 16. The developer shall obtain all of the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, MWCC, Minnesota Department of Health and comply with all conditions of the permits. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 17. The developer will be responsible for maintaining the storm sewer sediment basins until the entire development is built out and all areas are full revegetated. Upon completion of the project, the sedimentation basin located in the northeast corner of the site shall be abandoned and the storm sewer extended to the east pond. 18. The applicant shall provide the City with updated drainage and ponding calculations for the entire development including Phases I and II. The storm sewer shall be designed for a 10 year storm event. The applicant shall document that the existing storm sewers are capable of the additional runoff from Phase III. The City may require additional catch basins pending review of the final storm sewer calculations. 19. The applicant will be responsible for restoration of the City's boulevard along Santa Vera Drive. Security shall be included in the PUD agreement to guarantee boulevard restoration. 20. Kelly Court shall provide an acceptable turn around to the Fire Marshal or all units beyond 150 feet within Kelly Court shall be sprinklered. 21. Landscaping shall be rearranged along the east lot line of Lot 52 in a fashion that will allow access to the easterly ponding area by City maintenance crews. 22. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over Lot 51 for wetlands and the storm water retention ponds up to the 100 year flood level. In addition, a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the east lot line of Lot 52. 23. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval haul routes for exporting of material from the site. 24. All of the utility and street improvements will be privately owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. The covenants/association by-laws shall incorporate language notifying the homeowners of this responsibility. 25. The driveway access to Lot 49 shall be separated from Lots 50 and 51. 26. The lighting shall meet the maximum intensity permitted by ordinance at the property boundaries. 27. The size of the decks shall be limited to 80 square feet. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 28. Conservation easement shall be established beyond 30 feet of the rear of the buildings along the north side of the development. 29. Fencing for screening is not allowed within the development. 30. The applicant shall provide additional landscaping to account for the expansion of the footprint down the hill and to provide additional vegetation in areas acceptable to staff. 31. Preliminary plat shall be public noticed for the City Council meeting. All voted in favor, except Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Scott: And Commissioner Mancino, your summary. Mancino: My no has nothing to do with what the applicant has brought before us. It has to do with looking at a preliminary plat, a revised one that came in 3 years after the first one and it seems tonight that the neighbors in the area did not get notice of it. And that's why I'm against it. PUBLIC HEARING: PUD AMENDMENT FOR CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER TO SUBDIVIDE OUTLOT C INTO 7 OFFICE/MANUFACTURING/WAREHOUSE LOTS, AND ONE OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RAILROAD, AND NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE WEST, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION, ENGELHARDT AND ASSOCIATES. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Okay, any questions or comments for staff? Dave, comments? Hempel: No initial comments. Scott: Okay. Would the applicant like to make a presentation please? Bill Engelhardt: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Bill Engelhardt. I'm representing the owners of the project which is the Audubon 92 Partnership. I think I can make this very brief, unless you have some direct questions then we can address those. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Initially the area you see outlined in orange was platted as Outlot C in the 1st Addition. It's now a replat of Outlot C. It's been replatted into 6 lots with two cul-de-sacs up in this particular area and the remainder of the property will be now Outlot A for the 2nd Addition. Outlot D stays as Outlot D of the 1st Addition. Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block stay as part of the 1st Addition and Outlot A and Outlot B to the west stay as part of the 1st Addition. Part of your requirements is to show an overall development plan. This is the master plan for the development so you can see that in the future Outlot A could be subdivided into 5 additional lots. Outlot B could be subdivided into two additional lots. Lot 1 in both areas will stay the same. Outlot A would stay the same and Outlot B would stay the same. There's no additional work with those in those areas. We did list all of the, the building covers, the building square footages and we're a little bit below I think what the average was under the first part of the approval for this property. The main reason for coming back through the Planning Commission and through City Council with a revised plan and basically a revised PUD, are two issues. One was that they're now proposing smaller lots. The market is being driven, in fact there's 2 or 3 of these lots that have are real close to being sold so they've got more of a market for that type of lot. The other main thrust for redoing some of the work here was to reduce the amount of grading. This is a mass grading job and originally there was a pond proposed down in this area with realignment of the flood plain area and there was a cut for taking material out to compensate for the flood plain filling. There will be no work now in this area, in the flood plain or in these slopes or in the wooded areas other than the trail. We're going to leave that alone. We're generating...off of this site and we're utilizing the natural low areas as our ponding area, and we're backing up our buildings to this pond. That's really the main... We felt that looking at the cost, that there was a substantial amount of money to be saved by not... Landscaping buffer on the south, would remain the same as originally proposed. There's a stand of trees out there. Not a real good stand of trees but they're staying...The landscaping will be done on this cul-de-sac...We propose to build the pond at this time and we may be doing some of the landscaping... Right now the street, it's got a temporary cul-de-sac to this point. In the future you would probably come in with a plat for Outlot A, the 2nd Addition. We could then construct this street and do any additional work. That's, in a nutshell, that's pretty much it. If you have questions. Scott: Questions or comments? Bill Engelhardt: We do agree with the conditions that you set forth. The 12 conditions. The park fee issue was clarified. Aanenson: Yeah, I think it's the trail fee. Bill Engelhardt: Or the trail fee. The trail fee was clarified... Item number 9, the installation of traffic signals and surety for that. We don't necessarily disagree with it but, and maybe we 67 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 work with staff a little bit. We're not quite sure how to arrive at what share this piece of property would be contributing to a traffic signal...so again, I think that's an issue that we can work with the staff on. Item number 15. We don't have a problem with it and I heard tonight that we're talking about the perimeter landscaping for this area. Aanenson: Correct. Bill Engelhardt: And I don't see a problem with that because again...by next month or the month after, you're going to have 2 or 3 site plans. Aanenson: I guess just for clarification. That perimeter would include the streetscape on Lake Drive and then you're internal streetscape and then adjacent to the railroad tracks. Bill Engelhardt: Okay, that's fine. Scott: Any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant? Okay. Hearing none. This is a public hearing. Can I have a motion and a second to open the public hearing? Mancino moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Let the record show that we do not have any members of the general public who wish to speak, so can I have a motion and second to close the public hearing. Mancino moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments please, Matt. Ledvina: I would agree. I think the proposal is an improvement. I remember when the National Weather Service built their site and I was wondering, where was all the dirt going. And it was part of the grand scheme here and all I knew that this happened before my time and all I knew that there was all kinds of dirt going everywhere and I didn't understand it. And if we can reduce that, I'm very happy about that so. Other than that, I don't have any other comments. Scott: Okay, Nancy. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Mancino: Just a couple questions, and again this goes back to history. Why was this PUD approved with such a long cul-de-sac? Any particular reason? Aanenson: Well we looked at that. There's a natural feature, maybe it's easier to talk off of this. There's a significant stand of trees...there's no way really to save the tree...this piece needs to be accessed another way. Mancino: Yeah, I thought of more coming around. Aanenson: A loop? We looked at that and we based on the fact that the type of traffic that's generated is really determining the type of probably more truck type traffic so we felt that that makes sense. It is a long cul-de-sac. We did do an EAW with the original application that came in to kind of review those issues. We felt that probably the best way to serve it is to leave it at a cul-de-sac. We tried it down to the south. Mancino: ...residential ones. Aanenson: Right, you've got residential south. You've got the railroad tracks to the north so really, and then the degregation that you do going across, we just felt that it really didn't warrant that. Mancino: Okay. I have another question for you Kate. I went over to the neighborhood that abuts the Weather Station and from the back of those homes, it's not an ugly site but it's not a pretty site. It was different than what I thought we had approved on the parapet walls covering the HVAC units, etc and you can clearly see that. Aanenson: You'll be able to see the tops of all those buildings. Mancino: Because you're down so low? Aanenson: Yes. And that was an issue that we raised. Originally it came in with just a fence and we thought that was pretty contrite because no matter what, you're still going to see over the fence. So we said, basically all we can do with this plan is try to do something architecturally to make it, you're going to see on the top of all those. Eventually as we get more landscaping in, the Weather Service has not completed all the, we do have surety in place for the completion of their landscaping. That should be additional and with this trail hopefully, and more landscaping, we can try to mitigate some of this but same with on, I hear that same complaint on Audubon. You are looking down on top of this and it is a hard thing to do. Unless you can put a complete dog house, and we felt that was even adding to it. The best that we can do, and we've talked to the other people that are coming in on this site, is try 69 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 to blend the rooftop. It's going to be an issue on all these site plans when you see them, is try to blend some of this, the heating and ventilating equipment to match the roof line. Because I'm not sure if putting something around there is always going to be the best solution either, because you're still going to see on top. Mancino: Can we... Aanenson: Well that's an issue for a lot of the builders too is the maintenance of when paint peels off and then that can become unsightly too. So it's something we're going to have to struggle with as these come in. Mancino: Because it's really, I mean I don't think you'll have a problem with the lot west of it because of the existing tree line. Aanenson: Yes. And the lots just north of that, maybe will screen some more of it too. I don't know. From Audubon anyways but it's an issue. We've talked to the people who are looking at those lots and try to see what they, leave it to the creative architect to see if they can come up with some other solutions. But it's a tough issue. Mancino: That's my concern. The other thing is, how do you know what the building coverage is going to be on these lots? Aanenson: What we asked them to do is provide a typical building. Based on that they generate parking standards. They came up with a typical user would require this much square foot. Therefore, this much parking is required and that's how we came up with those numbers. This is a similar exercise we went through when the first one came in and we did the EAW. We needed to know how much building space and how much traffic would be generated and do the environmental. So they went through the same exercise because we wanted to get an idea if this, by making the lots smaller, if that increases the amount of impervious surface because we told them they had to stay within that same framework and as it turns out, it looks like we're actually underneath that so I think it's going to be pretty good. Bill Engelhardt: We had the same problem. Basically the same question. How do you determine it so...and I have a sketch here but I don't even want to show it to you because it's not real clean but we did go through the exercise of laying out the buildings and the parking lot and meeting all the setbacks to see what could be done. Mancino: So is this the biggest building that could be on that lot? Bill Engelhardt: Basically. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Aanenson: Yeah, it's maximum. Yeah, because again they have to stay within the 60%. Mancino: And Outlot, tell me about Outlot B. Where is it being accessed from and how is that all fitting into the scheme of things? Bill Engelhardt: Outlot B eventually is going to do one of two things. It could be tied in to Outlot A as one big park area or it would be tied in with the property immediately to the south. Aanenson: And what happens is, there's a big wetland that runs through this portion here. Even though...so it could be tied into that. Bluff Creek flattens out quite a bit there and there's a wide spans of, if you look on the zoning map. Well I'm not sure, it shows on the comprehensive plan. Bluff Creek is fairly wide through there. Mancino: So when you say it goes south, okay. Aanenson: Right straight south. Mancino: And this is industrial? Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: And what about this? Is this... Aanenson: Correct. You have an electrical substation down there and that area is guided for industrial. Mancino: And where does it stop, here? Aanenson: Yes. Right at Lyman. But actually you have a large buffer there that's naturally there because Bluff Creek through that area is about 300 feet wide. Or even wider. It flattens out right through there so that's kind of the natural transition through there. Mancino: And how are these people going to get access? I mean that's another time I guess. Aanenson: It would come off of Lyman as it goes north. That's the way to access that. Tie that together. Mancino: I don't have any other questions. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I have nothing further to add. I think it makes a lot of sense. Scott: Sounds good to me. Mancino: Oh, I just have one other thing, I'm sorry. Can we add to this PUD, since now we're changing it a little bit. Scott: Senior housing. Mancino: Yeah, senior housing. We would like to put senior housing on Outlot B...anyway. Throughout the language here and I know that we have updated it during the Highway 5 task force, etc. When we talk about outdoor storage and screening of everything. Instead of just putting landscaping, we put now year round landscaping. Can some of this be updated in the current language without it being a hassle to either the applicant or the city? Aanenson: It's interesting you bring that up because that dialogue came up meeting with some potential users on the site. Now, having said that, this is a bowl. It sits down quite a bit, which is one of the nice reasons it makes a good industrial park. It's topographically, you're seeing less sight lines of the building so in effect it's screening right there. I personally would like to leave some flexibility to the people that are looking at these lots to be creative and see how they're going to screen it. In some instances I think we're going to have site lines based on positioning of buildings. But the intent is that we don't have outdoor storage. And if they are, then they have to be screened and I'd like to leave that flexibility up to individual developers to see how that's accomplished because like I say, I think some of them will be, depending on buildings on sited, that will screen. Maybe in some instances they will have to do landscaping. Maybe some of them will have to be materials that block or tilt up panels that match the building that's going to be screened. But I'm not sure we can cover every, based on the types of users that may be out there, that we can cover all that. Scott: Well and you know, it's a PUD and we'll be getting site plans on all the many buildings. Mancino: Well I know but...PUD contract and the... Aanenson: Well right. Well yeah we can. I'm taking this same framework, and if we want to modify this, we're redoing the framework. I think if it's something you want to revisit. I guess what I'm saying is, the intent is that we screen it and we could list some ways to accomplish that but if you want to do that. I guess I'd say, I'd like to see, and we've already 72 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 just had this dialogue with people that are looking at lots. I've said if you can demonstrate to our satisfaction, the Planning Commission, the City Council, that you won't be able to see it, do perspectives from here. If I'm standing at this position and this position, that you won't be able to see it. Then that may be effectually screened. Mancino: If you feel that people will be receptive enough and there's enough teeth in that intent, fine with me. Aanenson: Yeah. It always was our intent that it be screened. Again, I think a lot of this is going to be accomplished based on the fact of the topography. But you do want to make sure from Highway 5 and that internal road that it is screened. Mancino: And from Audubon. I mean heavy screening. Aanenson: And that was always the intent that we have the higher type uses along Audubon that the more office component be facing that and those that have the more, the heavier trip generators or more outdoor storage, the more internal type uses. Mancino: You convinced me. Scott: Can I have a motion please? Nutting: I would make the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PUD amendment and preliminary plat of 7 lots and one outlot for Chanhassen Business Center, 2nd Addition as shown on the plans dated February 21, 1995 and subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report dated March 1, 1995. Mancino: Second. Scott: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we pass the staff's recommendations along as stated in the staff report. Is there any discussion? Nutting moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PUD amendment and preliminary plat of 7 lots and one outlot for Chanhassen Business Center, 2nd Addition as shown on the plans dated February 21, 1995 and subject to the conditions: 1. The applicant should provide the city with updated drainage and ponding calculations for Phase I and the overall development designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations which document the ponds will retain a 100 year storm event, 24 hour 73 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 duration and will discharge in accordance with city's Surface Water Management runoff rate. Final pond design standards shall be in accordance with the city's SWMP. The pond slope shall be 3:1 with a 10:1 bench at the normal water elevation for the first one foot depth of water or 4:1 side slopes overall. 2. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained along the entire westerly perimeter of the construction limits adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor. Type I erosion control fence may be used on all other areas. 3. All areas disturbed during site development shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch, sod, or wood fiber blanket within 2 weeks of site grading. Unless the city's Best Management Practices Handbook planting date dictates otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. In any case, all disturbed areas must be restored before November 15, 1995. 4. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with the latest edition of the city's Standards and Specifications and prepare final plans and specifications for city review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with the final plat approval process. 5. The developer shall obtain all the necessary permits from the watershed district, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MWCC, Mn Dept. of Health, and comply with all conditions of the permits. 6. The developer shall incorporate street lights into the street construction plans for Lake Drive West and the proposed streets. Street lights shall be designed consistent with the existing lighting on Audubon Road (low profile rectilinear-rectangular style lighting fixture with 250 watt sodium pressure lamps mounted on a 25 foot high cortin steel pole). Placement of the street lights shall be approved by the City. 7. The developer shall be responsible for maintaining the storm sewers and storm water retention pond until the entire development is "built-on". 8. The developer shall be responsible for water quantity fees for this phase of the development. Final calculation of water quantity fees will be based on the actual storm water calculations to be reviewed by the city. These fees will be payable prior to final plat being recorded. 9. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Trunk Highway 5 and Audubon Road is expected in the next few years. The developer shall be responsible or share the 74 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Audubon Road. Security to guarantee payment for the developer's share of this traffic signal for the entire development (Phases I and II) will be required. 10. The existing storm sewers in Lake Drive West which discharge into the temporary pond will need to be modified to convey the runoff to the new permanent pond on Outlot A (Second Addition). 11. Security to guarantee easements and future construction of trails should be included in the development contract for the Second Addition. 12. Park and trail fees shall be paid consistent with city ordinances. Surety/letter of credit for the future trail shall be placed as a condition in the development contract for the Second Addition. 13. Fire hydrants shall be located as per the city Fire Marshal's requirement. 14. Street names shall be submitted for review and approval by Public Safety. 15. All required perimeter landscaping shall be completed with the approval of the first submitted site plan in the Second Addition. Surety for this landscaping shall be placed in the development contract for the Second Addition. All voted in favor, except Conrad who had left the meeting, and the motion carried. Scott: I'm thinking we can probably continue the rest of this stuff to next week. I don't think there's a reason why we have to do this so I think. Mancino: Let's just finish it. There's nothing to finish. Scott: Well new business. No. You know what, on these things, if there's new business, could you list it because then I can just say, hey there's no new business. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 15, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 75 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: Okay. This is an update from the 13th, because the packets kind of, you have them the same week. They did approve the Halla plat extension to June 26, 1995, and that was basically, he was unable to get the soil. Ledvina: Why? Aanenson: Well, because he can't do the individual septic site tests during the winter month. There's an area that we're concerned about where the large nursery stock is. Whether or not that is suitable. Ledvina: I understand the concern. This plat was extended like last fall and they recognized that. Aanenson: We raised the same concern when the Council originally gave the March 6th date, we either said you've got to go sooner or later because March 6th is going to be in the middle of, it's not going to work. We raised that issue originally but the Council said, well. Let's put the 6th on it anyway so. Ledvina: So June 26th is the drop dead. Aanenson: Right. And we put in the motion that we would not recommend any more extensions. I mean that's it. And I wouldn't support one at that point. Mancino: Or Matt will leave the Planning Commission. Scott: No, he'll come back here. Aanenson: The final reading for the erosion control was done and we had a meeting today. We're trying to set up our procedures on how we're going to have that. They approved the Boston Chicken site plan. Ledvina: What did they think of that? Did they have any discussion on that? Aanenson: They had the same discussions, well. I think there was some concern about the boxiness of it, but I'll let Nancy. She was at the meeting. She covered it. Mancino: Well no, they covered it very quickly. I think that they felt that we had done a good job of reviewing it and they just went. 76 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 Ledvina: Did they like the awning? Did they talk about the awning? Mancino: They didn't talk about the awnings. Ledvina: Oh, okay. Aanenson: Then the March 15th is Lake Ann Highlands so that one still will be considered at that meeting so I'm not sure where that one sits as far as any new proposals or anything. Ledvina: I saw this. Aanenson: You like that? Ledvina: Yeah. Aanenson: I put that in there because Chanhassen, I circled Chanhassen. OPEN DISCUSSION. Scott: This could be ongoing items or open discussion. Let's put it in open discussion. Mancino: Well just real quickly. There was some very good article in the Twin Cities February '95 on multi-family housing and on rental property and why, you know they aren't being built right now. And it's just very informative. Ledvina: I'm sorry, what was the name of... Scott: That's a photocopy maybe in the next packet. Aanenson: Yeah, if you could leave that for me Nancy. Mancino: Yeah, I'll do that. It's just really, really good. The other thing is... Aanenson: And then also, based on our next discussion. Next week we do not have any public hearings noticed so it will just be a work session. I talked to Joe today about that. We thought we'd start at 7:00 and just go to 8:30 and then we'd give Matt a call and go out with Matt for his last meeting but we did call other cities to find out what they're doing for buffering so we'll be able to talk about that. So we're going to try to talk about two things. We've got the slope ordinance draft on that, which is reduction of grading, and then we'll talk 77 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995 about transition. So just those two ordinances. No public hearings so it will be a work session. Mancino: Now that I think about it, isn't the one that we just looked at tonight, isn't that a bluff? I mean where the oaks are? Aanenson: That's another one that was given an R-12 zoning without looking at the topography a long, long time ago and no. Mancino: Would it be now? Aanenson: Not with the new 25 but the one we're looking at, pretty much anything would be a bluff. Ledvina: What's that the new one? Aanenson: The new slope protection ordinance we're calling it. That's what we're going to meet on next. Scott: Any other stuff before Ron makes a motion to adjourn the meeting? Nutting moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 78 CITY OF 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, AICP, Planning Director DATE: March 29, 1995 SUBJ: Director's Report On Monday, March 13. 1995, the City Council took the following action: • Approved the award of bid for the pedestrian bridge. • Approved the rezoning, as well as the preliminary plat for Lake Ann Highlands (92 twin homes) on Galpin south of Windmill Run. • Approved the site plan and variance for KKCM Radio for a transmitter building. • Approved the rezoning and preliminary plat for Point Lake Lucy, Mason Homes, 19 single family lots on Lake Lucy Road west of Willowridge. On Monday, March 27, 1995, the City Council took the following action: • No action was taken on the PUD amendment for reallocation of density for 51 townhomes and 70 senior housing units because only 3 City Council members were present. A rezoning requires a 4/5 vote. • Approval of the preliminary and final plat to replat Lot 6 and the southerly 10 feet of Lot 9, Crane's Vineyard Park into two single family lots located at 1035 Holly Lane, Julie Sprau, Ravenswood Estates. • Site plan review for a 5,052 square foot building to be located on Lot 3, Block 1, West Village Heights 2nd Addition located at 900 West 78th Street, Gene Haberman, Century Bank. • The PUD amendment for the Chanhassen Business Center was tabled until April 10, 1995. A 4/5 majority vote is required for a zoning change. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION Resolution Number 95-01-28-02 1/31/95 ORDINANCE #81 MARINE ON ST. CROIX WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MARINE ON ST. CROIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTION 603, SINGLE FAMILY RURAL(SFR) ZONING DISTRICTS AND DISTRICT PROVISIONS,TO ALLOW FOR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION AND RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT, AND AMENDING THE RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: Section 302 Definitions • Section 4 General Provisions Section 604 Single Family Urban Section 605 Limited Industry Section 607 Lower St. Croix River District Section 706 Landscaping Section 711 Accessory Buildings and Structures Section 714 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Section 716 Tree and Woodland Preservation Section 721 Private Sewer Systems Section 728 Signs Section 1. Section 302, Definitions, of the Marine on St. Croix Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the incorporation of the following additions and revisions: (11.A) Building Envelope: The boundaries on a homesite lot within which all construction requiring a building permit may occur. (12) Building Line: A line at grade level which represents the exterior foundation wall surface of a building and from which horizontal setback distances are measured. (14) Building Height: The vertical distance to be measured from the mean ground level of the building footprint area before construction to the top, to the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. 1I2;-2g (19.A) Cluster; Cluster Development; Neighborhood Cluster: A grouping of residential or other structures arranged with the expressed intent of preserving open spaces and natural resources for community use, establishing a sense of community among residents, and reducing the costs and impact of infrastructure development and service delivery. (36) Farm: An unplatted tract of land containing approximately more than ten (10) acres, or two or more abutting parcels under the same ownership having a total area of more than ten (10) acres on which crops and often livestock are raised for a principal or major source of income. Such farms may include agricultural dwelling and accessory buildings and structures necessary to the operation of the farm. (36.A) Farm - Hobby: A platted or unplatted tract of land generally consisting of ten (10) or less acres in size with a house and accessory buildings on which crops and often livestock are raised but not as a principal or major source of income. A hobby farm shall not qualify for exemptions provided in this Ordinance for farms. (52.A) Horse Boarding: Those uses commonly associated with the raising, maintaining, and training of horses for riding, racing, or breeding. (74.A) Neighborhood: A district, or area, distinguishable by some identifiable feature or point of reference, in which people live in close proximity to one another. (79.A) Open Space: Undeveloped land of the subdivided property providing visual expanses and recreational areas clear of obstructions other than natural vegetation, or structures directly related to the use and enjoyment of these spaces. Open spaces may include natural habitats, places for neighborhood recreation, and pedestrian corridors. (79.B) Open Space Natural Habitat: Contiguous, connected areas preserved or restored in their natural condition, where indigenous plants and animals live. (79.C) Open Space Neighborhood Recreation: Specific areas, such as playground parks, greens, and commons, spatially defined and maintained for human recreational activity. (79.D) Open Space Pedestrian Corridors: Linear areas for pedestrian travel between open spaces or places of destination, such as walking trails and bicycle paths. (79.E) Open Space View Shed: A directional view or vista of an open space from a specified location. 2 E Ii':-30 (80.A) Outlot: A parcel of land having a legal description which has specific deed restrictions regarding use and types of permitted construction, and for which no building permits can be issued, except for the construction of open air structures. (122.A) Wetland Transition Area: Land area around a wetland which could be encroached upon by standing water during a heavy storm, and which provides a natural habitat for local wetland plants and animals. Section 2. Section 4, General Provisions, of the Marine on St. Croix Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to include the following: 403.A Uses Not Provided for Within Zoning Districts. Whenever in any zoning district a use is neither specifically permitted nor denied, the use shall be considered prohibited. In such cases, the City Council or the Planning Commission, on their own initiative or upon request, may conduct a study to determine if the use is acceptable and if so, what zoning district would be most appropriate and what conditions and standards shall apply to the development of the use. The City Council, Planning Commission or property owner, upon receipt of the study shall, if appropriate, initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to provide for the particular use under consideration (as a permitted, conditional, or accessory use) or shall find that the use is not acceptable for development within the City. The following sections of the Marine on St. Croix Zoning Ordinance are hereby repealed: Section 604.5 Prohibited Uses (Single Family Urban) Section 605.5 Prohibited Uses (Limited Industry) The following section of the Marine on St. Croix Zoning Ordinance is hereby repealed subject to approval by the Department of Natural Resources and to become effective upon the date of that approval: Section 607.6 Prohibited Uses (Lower St. Croix River District) Section 3. Section 6, Subd. 603, Single Family Rural (SFR), of the Marine on St. Croix Zoning Ordinance is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced.to read as follows: 3 MIN—31 SECTION 603 SINGLE FAMILY RURAL (SFR) 603.1 Purpose 603.2 Permitted Uses 603.3 Accessory Uses 603.4 Conditional Uses 603.5 Density 603.6 Open Space Performance Standards 603.7 Neighborhood Performance Standards 603.8 General Development Standards 603.1 PURPOSE A. The fundamental purpose of this district is to encourage rural residential development to be clustered in a pattern which satisfies the following planning objectives: 1. Preservation of contiguous common open spaces for scenic enjoyment, recreational use, and rural identity. 2. Creation of cohesive neighborhoods in order to establish local identity and community interaction. 3. Physical integration of neighborhoods, open spaces, and places of destination in order to establish municipal identity and community interaction. 4. To implement the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies with regard to rural area residential development, natural resource preservation, and public service delivery. B. The diagrams included in this section are provided to demonstrate graphically the purpose of the SFR District, its performance standards, and strategies by which the intended development pattern described by this Ordinance may be achieved. C. Creative application of this Ordinance is encouraged. However, its purpose and intent must be preserved. The City of Marine on St. Croix is prepared to encourage and support new development planned in compliance with the performance standards described by this Ordinance. 4 111;-32 603.2 PERMITTED USES The following are permitted uses in the SFR District: A. Single family detached residences. B. Essential services - telephone, power distribution equipment, etc. C. Residential care facilities serving six (6) persons or less. D. Day care facilities serving twelve (12) persons or less. E. Agriculture. Prior to subdivision, land may be used for agricultural purposes and be considered a permitted use in the SFR District. Any change to such a use creating a lot ten (10) acres or less shall require subdivision approval and any required conditional use permits be processed according to this Ordinance. 603.3 ACCESSORY USES The following are permitted accessory uses in the SFR District. All accessory buildings are subject to the provisions of Section 711 of this Ordinance. A. Garages and accessory buildings. B. Fences. C. Gardening and other horticultural uses, including greenhouses D. Recreation equipment, provided they are accessory to an existing principal permitted use on the same lot and which are operated for the enjoyment and convenience of the residents and their occasional guests. E. Tool houses, sheds and similar buildings for storage of domestic supplies and non-commercial recreational equipment. F. Private garages, parking spaces and car ports for licensed and operable passenger cars and trucks. G. Off-street parking. H. Any uses customarily associated with and incidental to the permitted uses 5 -33 603.4 CONDITIONAL USES The following are conditional uses in the SFR District: A. Agriculture, farms, hobby farms and horse boarding, provided that: 1. Only one lot may be subdivided from a larger parcel such that the resulting two lots are each greater than five (5) acres in area, and this practice shall not be repeated. 2. The subdivision is processed according to the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 3. The subdivided lots do not interfere with the subdivision of lots on adjacent parcels. 4. The subdivided lots are capable of accommodating a private well and septic system. 5. A deed restriction is placed on the lots which prohibits additional subdivision unless it conforms to SFR Zoning District requirements. 6. A maximum number of farm animals per acre of farmland as specified below: Animals Number/Acre a. Horses 1/2 b. Cattle, mules, donkeys 1/2 c. Goats, sheep, swine 2/1 d. Turkeys, ducks, geese, chicken, rabbits 5/1 e. Other animals as permitted by the City Council upon evaluation of size, required habitat, and ratio per acre of animals for the specific lot. Farmland acreage for the purpose of this computation shall not include or encroach on slopes in excess of eighteen (18) percent, wetlands, wetland transition areas, and floodplains. 7. All horse stables and structures or other facilities for housing animals shall be located a minimum distance of four hundred (400) feet from any adjacent residential structure, excluding the residential structure on the same lot, and all corral areas shall be located a minimum distance of two hundred (200) feet from any adjacent residential structure, excluding the residence of the applicant. 6 •;rt ,- -3 4 B. Churches and schools, provided that: 1. Side yards shall have a forty (40) foot setback. 2. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided. 3. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses. 4. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable. C. Seasonal produce stand accessory to farms, provided that: 1. Only members of the family occupying the residence on the farmstead are engaged in such seasonal sale of produce. 2. Only temporary, unenclosed display facilities are used to exhibit produce items. 3. Adequate off-street parking is provided and no parking related to produce sales occurs on the public right-of-way. 4. Signs: a. Are located only on the private property of the farm owner/ operator and are no more than one hundred (100) feet from the point of sale. b. Are located no closer than fifteen (15) feet from any lot line. c. Are limited to no more than two (2) signs totalling no more than sixteen (16) square feet. d. Are removed at times when the sales operation is closed for the season. D. Federal, state, and local government buildings and structures, including police and fire stations. E. Home occupations, provided they are in compliance with Section 725 of this Zoning Ordinance. 7 NDi—35 F. Public parks, playgrounds, and memorial gardens, provided that: 1. The site is landscaped. 2. The use is available to the public. • 3. The site has access to a City street. 603.5 DENSITY A. The maximum permitted density within the district shall be one (1) lot per five (5) acres. In order to calculate the maximum permissible number of lots within a tract, the total gross tract acreage is multiplied by 0.20 and the result, if a fraction, is rounded down to the nearest whole number (see Figure 603-A). B. All development within SFR Zoning Districts shall be subject to planning for cluster development, as defined in Section 302. y.. ' .—' Jam:'.--_ -� __ r \ , ...1_,...._,.. , ...-7 ..._ ,.;...„ ... , _ , , ...." _._.___----- :. f - i \ 0 / I / _ ______4_,.............. ((. .....--T------F.---11 . #___,___,........4-------- ;- y ---1:16- 1 = 4��a ■ Figure 603-A The maximum permitted density for the district is one (1) unit per five (5) acres. For a forty (40) acre tract, a maximum of eight (8) lots are permissible. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the land being subdivided for development dedicated to open space. 8 . T.:IN-36 603.6 OPEN SPACE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A. It is the intention of this Ordinance to promote common open space development which provides a unified landscape for the use and enjoyment of the neighborhood community. Evaluation and subdivision approval by the City Council shall be subject to demonstration by the applicant that the proposed development plan provides common open spaces in a site design appropriate to the location of building lots. B. Area Regulations. 1. A minimum of fifty (50)percent of land subdivided for development shall be dedicated to open space consisting of natural habitat, neighborhood recreation, and/or pedestrian corridor open space, as defined in Section 302 (see Figure 603-B). 2. All designated open space shall be platted as outlot parcels held as open space in perpetuity. 3. Each open space outlot shall be classified as natural habitat, neighborhood recreation, or pedestrian corridor open space, and shall conform to the type of use, location criteria, and deed restrictions of that classification. F Natural Habitat Neighborhood Pedestrian Corridor RecreationT\ _- ✓ -:.:,:v..„.,,,,,,,-- ,...(.____ 0: stajr./4-: _1 ____----- ' :\----- 11-• <4. % / (.• r --.) ? jCIIIIP. s"-::...17;1:.r):.---::.:-.:'''-*r.''.g-.2.. .<4° (:::::-% .1;:i),: — , s....i 1-::r s,...-' :' . I Figure 603-B Natural habitat, pedestrian corridor and neighborhood recreation open spaces are located on the development site according to their type of use. 11i;-"57 C. Location Criteria. Open space outlots shall be located on the development site according to the following locational criteria: 1. View Sheds. The open space outlots shall preserve the maximum quantity of view shed open space for the anticipated homesite lots on the development tracts (see Figure 603-C). 2. Natural Habitat. The development shall preserve the maximum quantity of natural habitat open spaces in a contiguous, connected configuration. Natural habitat open spaces may include, but are not limited to fields, wetlands, slopes, bluffs, dense woods, lakes, ponds, streams, shorelands, and other environmentally sensitive areas or desirable view sheds. 3. Pedestrian Corridors. The development shall locate pedestrian corridor open spaces in strategic places such that larger open space outlots and designated places of destination both on the development tract and adjacent tracts are connected with one another. Pedestrian corridor open spaces may include, but are not limited to established regional trails, local pathways, paved walkways, and shorelines. Pedestrian corridor outlots shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width. 4. Neighborhood Recreation. The development shall locate neighborhood recreation open spaces such that they are an integral part of the neighborhood of surrounding homesites, at an elevation appropriate to their intended recreational use, defined by coherent boundaries, and accessible to all neighborhood residents. Neighborhood recreation open spaces may include, but are not limited to greens, commons, playgrounds, ball fields, gardens, or other recreational areas. 10 MTil—38 Wit. ;'_''r�::4 =�-- . .J `SK_: \ �� - z -.sem= • - 1 Viewshed l' A ____...,_ . , c ..p le sr 1.,,,,..---;". s ' / /4-'4 V — ...** ,/:, • —--Ly '1 ---1\--- ,(-- 1 IL-7—7_ - ...-.- \ ....,,J - i z .,,-..-- __ _15. ' i ' 7 I . -::-.7..,:-: , -,:. --__.:: .. Figure 603-C Viewsheds are directional open space vistas from a homesite and between tree stands and other neighborhood • buildings. D. Accessibility. Open spaces shall be accessible to pedestrians at no less than one thousand two hundred (1,200) foot intervals along public roadways. Where necessary, pedestrian access corridor outlots between private lots shall be at least twenty (20) feet in width. E. Deed Restrictions. Each open space outlot shall conform to the deed restrictions associated with its open space classification. 1. Natural habitat open spaces shall be considered conservation easements and are for the responsible use and enjoyment by adults and children. Construction in these areas shall be limited to trails (paved or unpaved), open air shelters, bridges, benches, bird houses, wood fencing, and communal drainfields. 2. Neighborhood recreation open spaces shall be used for active or passive recreational purposes, including gardening. Construction in these areas shall be limited to gravel or paved walkways, open air shelters, bird 11 :_i—3i houses, garden storage sheds no larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, wood fencing, landscape planting, play equipment, outdoor furniture, and facilities for active recreation. 3. Pedestrian corridor open space shall be used for pedestrian, bicycle, and/or equestrian travel. Motorized vehicles shall be prohibited. Construction in these areas shall be limited to gravel or paved pathways, wood fencing, and landscape planting. 4. Habitable structures shall not be permitted in any open space outlot. F. Ownership and Management. Each designated open space outlot shall be owned and managed according to one of the following means, subject to City Council approval. 1. Open space may be owned in common by the property owners created through subdivision of the original tract. Management shall be the responsibility of that subdivision's homeowner association. In the case where at least one (1) outlot of open space is held in common ownership, a homeowner association shall be established for that subdivision and membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision shall be mandatory. 2. Open space may be deeded to an established land trust. Management shall be the responsibility of the land trust. Maintenance may be performed by the neighborhood homeowner association, through written agreement between the association and the land trust. 3. Open space may be deeded to the City of Marine on St. Croix. Management shall be the responsibility of the City. 603.7 NEIGHBORHOOD PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A. It is the intention of this Ordinance to promote neighborhood development which offers a variety of lot size, configuration, topography, and affordability. Evaluation and subdivision approval by the City Council shall be subject to demonstration by the applicant that the proposed development plan provides a cohesive neighborhood(s) in a site design appropriate to the location of common open spaces. 12 i•:IN—40 B. Neighborhood Configuration. 1. In order to establish a cohesive neighborhood unit, residential lots shall be located in a neighborhood cluster. A neighborhood cluster shall include a minimum of five (5) lots or twenty-five (25) percent of the allowable number of lots on the parcel to be subdivided, whichever is greater. An efficiency of land utilization and community development should be encouraged by maximizing the number of lots in any one cluster development, while adhering to the underlying density and open space requirements of this Ordinance (see Figure 603-D). " J 2/ + :r;,.,_, ) ' f-. %—.{ �, kJ/ I ' .Gs1 k _ /,� \.1 •..i t„or- --I -'7..--t-L J e y 1 -_i---f•?..--, ..: J.!1-:1;;:7-,.....r... /--.7--':::'-'e-l'‘.:-; cirMaglb n.l..‘,ff..'1;IT.-,....''',,_, 1,..__L_4: .).:2:L,1::. Figure 603-D(1) An example of a cul-de-sac development pattern discouraged by this ordinance. / ;:-:'.,--1::::,.. : , ..fit\ JJ,i, ----) Figure 603-D(2) An example of a neighborhood cluster development pattern encouraged by this ordinance. The neighborhood cluster configuration permits an efficiency of land utilization and opportunities for community development. • 13 .._1;41 2. A neighborhood cluster shall be oriented toward an identifiable feature which all residential units share in common (see Figure 603-E). Neighborhood identity may be established by one or more of the following features: a. View Shed. The lots of a neighborhood may be arranged such that a majority of the principle structures will take visual advantage of a field, wetland, woods, lake, stream, or other open space which could be described as a view shed. b. Physical Amenity. The lots of a neighborhood may be arranged such that a majority of the principle structures will face a green, playground, ball field, rock out-cropping, stand of trees, church, school, or other physical feature unique to that particular neighborhood. c. Streetscape. The lots may be arranged such that the principle structures face a street space enhanced with landscaping, street trees, boulevards, medians, or other landscaping techniques appropriate to the City's street design standards. 3. The principal and accessory structures on private lots, and the structures of neighborhood recreation open spaces are encouraged to convey a particular architectural style through use of similar building components, materials, roof pitches, landscaping, and/or other construction techniques. C. Lot Area Regulations. 1. Lot Area. Platted lots shall be a minimum of one (1) acre and a maximum of five (5) acres in area with the exception of a conditional use permit for agricultural use, farms, hobby farms, or horse boarding. 2. Lot Width. Platted lots shall be a minimum one hundred fifty (150) feet and a maximum two hundred fifty (250) feet in width measured at the required front yard setback, with the exception of a conditional use permit for agricultural use, farms, hobby farms, or horse boarding (see Figure 603-F). 14 M Ili—42 �r_ Il...�J Y J J)j I- i- JJ - is \-.. ‘-.---.:•• •.. 11 'r:.• YK. ..�'� \� -�Y=; •...-..•...' .• , /, • vim Vie��shed �� ,l 6j'�� • iiii $ ,...- . -; ->. -,. . _.., K"\ tral_. . ..:: , •- . • --„........„ -,......i.f,, <:" ,- ar\iscz, %40i ... � � . , i• * ,6,._..._...___ 1, _... Physical Am•eniterm.:.. /.... r----_,..,,i y--.7. /' ♦ ` S Q ... .„.91cicLif .:•:. , • ...•.... „ -.• �. :s-•• \ / 4* - 's is s'- fli " . ". — - ......._. \.4.,..,---.4:-..:.r..". .:• Figure 603-EU) An example neighborhood cluster oriented Figure 603-E(2) An example neighborhood cluster oriented toward a viewshed or a physical amenity. toward common green and streetscape. i .-... '-' -::::::..?\....: 1.-.-. ---.. \ , ...,.. .. . . . ..,. ...._ , _... .. 4,m\ oil — ........,...,...,. . .. .. ,...„..........i„,. \\), ......).............._4,.....v ..... ro., ...„,... 4piki .,.. .. . ._ ...,., .....„. .... .....____ •... .:: /607 il - :.-7-..- /i --. \11P ' 11_ 1(iri 1.....1 . ,. . it/ -12 .. . ... .... .„....... , r c-_, , -..) •., ; S >7 \:\*. , ..-.- ..,.... ii 40111: n j c)./.< , - - iti-er -) .: ... \. /1 *\\- iti' _. . /</. . /\•*' s\ - ' > ./ / ' 440 .. 01 .7,• , Figure 603-E(3) An example neighborhood cluster oriented Figure 603-E(4) An example neighborhood cluster oriented toward a corner park or green streetscape. toward a park or green at an intersection. 15 PiI c-43 ,m• r:77 ISO' Lcro' - O Ifo' 1.41 0.4 71 1l 1_ ±' 1 ACRE LOT 2 ACRE LOT 2.5 ACRE LOT 150' x 290' 150' x 580' 150' x 730' 250' x 180' 250' x 350' 250' x 440' 43,560 s.f. 87,120 s.f. 108,900 s.f. Figure 603-F Lot area to lot width comparisons for one (1) acre, two (2) acre, and two and one half (2.5) acre lots, using orthagonal lot dimensions. D. Building Envelope Regulations. 1. The principal structure shall dictate the area and location of the building envelope (see Figure 603-G). All detached accessory buildings shall be: a. Located behind the rear most building line of the principle structure. b. Within the side and rear setbacks identified in Section C.2 above. c. Within an area one hundred fifty (150) feet from the rear most building line of the principle structure. d. In conformance with the building area requirements of Section 711 of the Zoning Ordinance. e. Buildings less than one hundred (100) square feet in floor area may be located outside the building envelope, but within the rear yard and its required setback distances. 16 M_N—44 r, - _ - - - v r L </c%). II .., So' Zc z I I I _ I_ Rear most r C I I • building line G i t " I Front L _J building line Figure 603-G The front building line setback a minimum of forty (40) feet and a maximum of eighty (SO) feet from the street right-of-way line. The building envelope consists of an area within the front and side yard setbacks and within one hundred fifty (150) feet from the rear most building line of the principal structure. 2. Development of neighborhood clusters is encouraged in locations which minimize the visual impact of the development on the landscape to the greatest extent reasonably possible. 3. Building envelopes shall not encroach on view sheds, ridge lines, slope in excess of eighteen (18) percent, wetlands, wetland transition areas, and floodplains. 4. Setbacks. Building line setbacks shall be within the following setback distances from platted lot lines: a. Front Yard: Required Distance from Road Right-of-Way Road Class Minimum Maximum 50 feet ---- State Highway 40 feet ---- County Road 40 feet 80 feet • City Street 17 MIN-45 b. Side Yard: Minimum twenty (20) feet. c. Rear Yard: Minimum fifty (50) feet. d. Side yard building envelope setbacks on corner lots shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet. 5. Septic drainfields and water wells may be located outside the building envelope, but within the setback distances described in Section 603.7.D.4 above. E. Building Height. 1. Principal structures shall have a maximum building height of thirty-five (35) feet. 2. Accessory structures shall have a maximum height of twenty-four (24) feet. 3. The building height limits established for the SFR District shall not apply to the following: a. Belfries. b. Chimneys or flues. c. Church spires. d. Farm buildings. 4. Antennas and satellite dishes accessory to the principal structure shall not be subject to the height limitations of the SFR District provided: a. Antenna structures attached to the principal structure shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the roof line. b. Detached antenna structures shall be set back from property lines a distance of one (1) foot for every one (1) foot of height, and have a maximum sixty-five (65) foot height. c. Detached antenna structures shall be located within the building envelope defined in Section 603.7.D.1. F. Garages. 1. Garages having doors facing the front of the lot shall be setback twenty- five (25) feet or more from the front facade of the principle structure. 18 Yi Ind-46 2. Garages may be attached to the principle structure or be located within the building envelope as a detached accessory structure. G. Driveways. 1. Driveways may be located outside the building envelope. 2. Paving shall be required in areas where the driveway grade is in excess of six (6) percent. H. Landscaping and Lawns. 1. On individual lots, existing vegetation considered indigenous and appropriate to the natural landscape shall be preserved to the extent reasonably possible. 2. Homesite lots shall be prepared according to the tree preservation measures described in Section 716 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The use of indigenous species shall be encouraged where landscaping enhancement is proposed. 603.8 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Roadways. 1. All new roadways shall be constructed and maintained in compliance with Section 7 of the Subdivision Ordinance for the City of Marine on St. Croix. 2. Local streets should be so planned as to discourage their use for regional traffic. Streets shall connect with one another or be terminated by other streets. Dead-end streets are prohibited, and cul-de-sacs shall be permitted only where topography or other physical conditions justify their use. B. Storm Water Management. Storm water management techniques shall be consistent with Section 714 of the Zoning Ordinance with the following additions: 1. All retention basins shall resemble natural ponds to the maximum extent possible. 2. Basin landscaping shall include indigenous plants and landscaping materials. 19 ?''L -47 C. Utilities. 1. All new subdivisions may be platted to accommodate homesite lots with either individual or communal septic systems. 2. All septic systems shall conform to the performance standards of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Standards for Sewage Treatment Systems WPC-7080 and its appendices, or the MPCA standards in effect at the time of installation. 3. All subdivision proposals shall be reviewed by a certified inspector designated by the City for suitability of platted lots to accommodate individual and/or communal septic systems. 4. Communal drainfields may be used for homesites not conducive to individual septic drainfield installation (see Figure 603-H). "\..\..? • j-:•"'! ..-.- -.::::,-!.'".....—1.- --lir 111 _.. ...• .. 1 .. 1 ri_iii • .:..,..„.. ..._ ....._, _...:, ..„.3:_;..7.,<_;....c., 7•::---'' • i'- - i i 1081 } ...•-.ti:.5 - *� .}'-7t Figure 603-H Communal septic systems may have all or a portion of their required drainfields in natural habitat open spaces. 20 iiIty-48 5. Communal drainfields shall be installed at two (2) times the individual capacities of all homes sharing the system. 6. Communal septic systems may have all or a portion of their required drainfields in natural habitat open spaces provided: a. The ground cover is restored to its natural condition after installation. b. Recreational uses are prohibited above or within fifty (50) feet of their installation. 7. All homesite lots shall accommodate an on-site or an approved communal water well. 8. All utility, power, and cable service lines shall be installed below grade unless permitted otherwise by the City Council upon evaluation of demonstrated hardship. D. Signs. 1. Neighborhood or development identification signs shall not be permitted. 2. Temporary real estate or development sales signs shall conform to the provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to signs. E. Homeowners Association. A homeowners association shall be established with bylaws and deed restrictions to include but not be limited to the following: 1. To provide maintenance for open spaces owned in common. 2. To provide maintenance for shared private facilities. 3. To establish and maintain architectural guidelines for principle structures, accessory structures, and structures built on open space outlots. 21 Section 4. Section 706, Landscaping, of the Marine on St. Croix Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to include the following: 706. LANDSCAPING. The area disturbed by construction or reconstruction shall be restored or landscaped within nine (9) months after issuance of an occupancy permit. Section 5. Section 711, Accessory Buildings and Accessory Structures, of the Marine on St. Croix Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to include the following: 711.1. In Residential Districts: 1. No accessory buildings in the SFU, SCRD, SCUD and SCCBD Districts may be located within ten (10) feet of the side property line and in the SFR District, no accessory building shall be located within twenty (20) feet of the side property line. Section 6. Section 714, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Marine on St. Croix Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to include the following: 714.3 Drainage Plans. 1. In case of all business and industrial developments, the drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and the final drainage plans shall be subject to the City Engineer's written approval. 2. As part of a building permit application for a single family home, a site survey showing grading, drainage, and building pad (elevation) must be submitted consistent with the approved final grading plan of the subdivision. 3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer or contractor must submit certification that the grading and drainage was performed consistent with the approved final grading and drainage plan. • 22 i` IN—5 0 Section 7. Section 716, Tree and Woodland Preservation, of the Marine on St. Croix Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to include the following: 716.2 Tree and Woodland Preservation Plans. 1. In the case of all single family subdivisions, business, and industrial developments, a tree preservation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval by the City Council. The tree preservation plan shall include identification of significant trees within the construction area, tree preservation measures to be implemented during building construction, and site grading to protect identified significant trees. Section 8. Section 721, Private Sewer Systems, of the Marine on St. Croix Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: 721 Private Sewer Systems. The standards as found in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Standard for Sewage Treatment Systems WPC-7080 and its appendices, or the effective standards at the time of new installation or replacement are hereby adopted by reference for all individual and communal septic systems. Section 9. Section 728, Signs, of the Marine on St. Croix Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to include the following: 728.10 Real Estate Development Project Signs. A real estate development project sign advertising lots or property for sale, shall be located on premises by permit, and sign shall be removed upon sale of one hundred (100) percent of lots in subdivision. The sign shall be a maximum of seventy-five (75) square feet each side, located at the site of the subdivision, setback fifteen (15) feet from the lot lines, and not within any right-of-way or boulevard. 23 IIS I-51 Section 10. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Marine on St. Croix City Council this a day of 1995. CITY OF MARINE ON ST. CROIX By: =- . ( Gregorii.ALudvigsen, I4yor ATTEST: By: , i1.� /1(:C-,.-rte K. Ginger'/Bolin, City Clerk 24