The URL can be used to link to this page

03-1-95 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 1995, 7:00 P.M. T' • CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION 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. CITY OF -� PC DATE: 3/1/1995 CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 3/27/1995 CASE #: 95-1 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 1.45 acres into two (2) single family lots, Ravenswood Estates Addition. Z LOCATION: 1035 Holly Lane, Lot 6 Crane's Vineyard Park. The property is Q located on the south side of Holly Lane. U ..J APPLICANT: Julie L. Sprau Owner: Merald & Elaine Krogstad 2004 Scarborough Ct. 1035 Holly Lane n- Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Q 612-448-1633 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: 1.45 acres DENSITY: 1.4 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - City of Shorewood, Residential S - RSF, Residential Single Family Q E - RSF, Residential Single Family W - RSF, Residential Single Family WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The lot contains a number of trees in the 10 to 16 inch diameter range with several larger trees located on proposed Lot 1. A (1) dilapidated cottage and garage are currently located on the property. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Ranee - L2 - 4.0 units/Ac.) U �Q? o° .o O o co hO w 0 K1 0 O 0 ; O O O C I I I JILAC I N - °° I"- t< ` ( LANE I ( { I fl I •� . • ; • • • • �� CHR/STMAS I Cin L=m I . iLA rail - `!_�j ��, LAKE 41111FAr razz.lt! fa: ..em... PRI ko-7,4w6,4( • S- etr illii_ .. PHE • Art4ie011114v4 .fik" &# t___ WA :fi fi:Cah1—----l- -11-1-1iar1‘„a1.,,.' ' -M1v..;rl,..,..4cZ,1111.,vlll sl dFARMS i� , 1 oA ,� 7 1 � • ,t 1'- : PARK �]�� • it A ,si ©v a - `- l INN r _ Mallir‘ ,eadia .dd Li NA Erjrzift n1:-.), \\ .S In • 1111 64621Ealialel Wire I t014,14,4111\\/ cA Hostrai• Cf,1 1711111111111hci �/_,.. irc `.. ..e. CAR' 4ifir §11111nnt 41 ;V /// PLA GRI EA f Rimer ,gr��f��--=.t. ,�',.+��. - BEAT OP 04 - S_ - SHEmiminiCIR NBNDO• PARA ittrIr I� ram=.infai . s I. ee 1111k4 1M Pringh 3 Iii,,ii!. 1, .evivfirjr- . NI%is wit: ‘_„_ 2 �1 Eft” _�� '�� ROAD - \ivi ow mt.. *4, VA, Illa "mew s•fis •gorte " is , 11 \�. ` . ll r' • ,..1111. /��_ � *V, srime iu v '��``�r. 01 • .* �� _`_._________„,,, / E ool l��►� I� :•-' s--o.., A..... .. .. �4,R4,14-4 11 , (440 EN P21 2:: '. Emi. siarA It‘frip..: 4- ., .,„_, -------_-____ -1 ,.. ...: ,....,, r. orp.,7.=?au mina% Orzit i mg EL iti vi 4'44 a •;% %Ptah"; . Ult/5.0,4Wdl -------,,---Alliginai lleorm ,, - ,,� ` I � eII'1 �r � `�. GREENWO �1111 :.. �-i ,_ IaAAAate IN►� r , :-,; • SHORES , �, .„- 111111 11”1 rellralla PA 9K ( -- 11111fingialiti..4r -7 41b4,7 akiPS1314/21''' / Alec A u AI I,' GREEN P,oma ./- 0.., _ow �� Q�►>s! Ravenswood Estates March 1, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide an existing 1.45 acre parcel into two lots. Both lots meet the minimum width, depth, and area requirements of the zoning ordinance. Lot 1 would contain approximately 22,879 square feet with Lot 2 occupying the remaining 36,387 square feet. The existing 1.45 acre parcel, Lot 6 of Crane's Vineyard Park, includes a ten foot wide strip of property which runs along the southerly boundary of Lot 9. This linear strip of property provides access to Christmas Lake and will become part of proposed Lot 2. Use of this property will be limited to the future owners of Lot 2. Access to the parcels will be provided via a private street which will serve a total of four lots, including the two proposed lots and the existing homes on Lot 9 and Lot 5 of Crane's Vineyard Park. Twenty feet of the thirty foot street easement will be located on proposed Lot 1 with the remaining ten feet on adjoining Lot 9. Combining the driveways and creating a private street will reduce the amount of impervious surface while providing more open space. BACKGROUND Crane's Vineyard Park was platted in September of 1908 and consists of nine lots. After reviewing the original plat of Crane's Vineyard Park, it would appear that this area consists of fairly large lots (one acre or larger). However, a number of these lots contain more than one home or principal structure. The two parcels adjacent to the proposed subdivision both have more than one principal structure. Based on the total number of homes within Crane's Vineyard Park, the proposed subdivision not only meets ordinance requirements but appears to be compatible, from a density standpoint, with surrounding properties. As mentioned above, the existing parcel, Lot 6, contains a ten foot wide strip of land which provides access to Christmas Lake. This extension does not meet city standards with regards to width of property at the shoreline, and there is insufficient area for dock setback. Staff has reviewed the nonconforming status of this piece of property, as it pertains to future use of the lakeshore, and determined that a dock may be maintained as a nonconforming structure. A dock has existed on this parcel in excess of forty years and may continue to be used as long as it maintains its "grandfather status." Therefore, the dock cannot be altered and must be used every year. If the use is discontinued for more than one year, it loses the legal non- conforming status. Storage of boats at the dock must be consistent with all other applicable city requirements except those which have the legal non-conforming status. Ravenswood Estates March 1, 1995 Page 3 ACCESS Access to the proposed lots will be provided via a private street from Holly Lane. The common sections of this private street must be built to a (7) seven ton design and paved to a width of twenty (20) feet. Preliminary grading plans shows Lot 1 served by a separate driveway onto Holly Lane. In recent discussions with city staff, the applicant indicated that the driveway for Lot 1 will come off of the proposed private street. Staff is recommending that proposed Lots 1 and 2 receive direct access from the private street only, and not Holly Lane. UTILITIES According to the City's records, the existing cottage is connected to municipal sewer and water from Holly Lane. Upon removal of the cottage the existing sewer and water lines will have to be properly disconnected according to City standards. It is assumed that the new dwelling on Lot 1 will utilize the same service line in the future. Lot 2, however, is not currently provided with a sewer and water service stub. The applicant will have to extend an individual sewer and water line from Holly Lane along the private driveway to service this lot. According to the City's assessment files, this parcel was previously assessed for one trunk and lateral water and sewer assessment. Therefore, the applicant or the builder of Lot 2 shall be assessed another trunk and lateral sewer and water assessment in the amount of $8,124 (1995 rate). The City will credit back to the applicant or builder $2,500 against the trunk and lateral water and sewer assessment for Lot 2 for construction of the individual service line from the main line in Holly Lane to the property line. The assessment for the lateral and trunk sewer and water line is payable at the time of building permit application or the individual may petition the City to assess these costs and spread them over a four-year period with interest. An existing fire hydrant is located between the existing gravel driveway and the proposed driveway expansion. The fire hydrant will have to be relocated to avoid conflicts with traffic. At the same time, the individual sewer and water service for Lot 2 could be extended as well. The cost of this work shall be the responsibility of the applicant. The City will need to inspect the construction techniques when relocating the fire hydrant. A permit will be required for this work. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The applicant estimates that the site is approximately 74 percent covered by tree canopy. City code specifies that the post development canopy coverage must be a minimum of 46 percent. A worst case scenario would permit the applicant to remove approximately 17,685 square feet of canopy area. Staff finds that the applicant will remove approximately 2,500 Ravenswood Estates March 1, 1995 Page 4 square feet of canopy area. Based on this review, there are no forestation or replacement planting requirements. The applicant achieved a minimal loss of tree canopy by making use of a shared driveway, minimizing grading, and by selecting appropriate building sites. In addition, a large number of the trees are located in the required setbacks and will not be disturbed or removed as a result of building construction. For the reasons stated above, staff is not requesting tree conservation easements. However, staff is recommending that a home placement plan be provided, as well a tree preservation plan, to ensure minimal tree loss. Staff will work with the applicant in delineating tree protection zones and locating tree protection fencing. Special attention should be given when removing the existing cottage as not to damage the trees located near this structure. GRADING According to the grading plan, only minimal site grading will be necessary to accommodate the home sites and construction of the driveways. On Lot 1 the plans show the driveway accessing onto Holly Lane resulting in the loss of a significant oak tree (36-inch diameter). Staff has the understanding the applicant will be relocating this driveway access off the private driveway (east lot line) thus saving the 36-inch oak tree. The plans also show a power pole located within the proposed driveway through the east side of Lot 1. This power pole will need to be relocated to accommodate construction of the common driveway. The site contains an existing cottage and garage that will have to be razed or removed from the site. The appropriate demolition or moving permit will be required by the City. DRAINAGE AND STREETS Holly Lane in this location serves as the northern boundary of Chanhassen. The north side of Holly Lane is within the City of Shorewood. Holly Lane consists of a narrow, sub-standard 24-foot wide bituminous street. The street does not have curb and gutters or storm drainage facilities. Storm water runoff is conveyed through a meandering open ditch section located along the south side of Holly Lane until it reaches the existing gravel driveway on this site. From there it is conveyed through an existing culvert system down to Christmas Lake. The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) proposes a sediment/nutrient trap to be constructed adjacent to Christmas Lake downstream from this development to pretreat storm water prior to discharging into Christmas Lake. Due to topographic constraints, staff feels a better location for the sediment/nutrient trap would be on the parcel directly west of this proposed development. The City has no plans at this time to develop this pretreatment ponding facility. The appropriate drainage and utility easements are being conveyed with this plat to install storm sewers and maintain the neighborhood drainage through the site. Staff Ravenswood Estates March 1, 1995 Page 5 recommends the applicant pay the appropriate SWMP fees in accordance with City ordinance versus constructing any storm water improvements. The SWMP fees were calculated as follows: 1. Water Quantity: 1.36 acres at $1,980 per acre (single-family rate) = $2,693.00 2. Water Quality: 1.36 acres at $800 per acre (single-family rate) = $1,088.00 A driveway culvert will be needed underneath the new driveway to maintain drainage through the site. According to the City's SWMP, a 30-inch diameter culvert is necessary. Staff also recommends the use of riprap at the ends of the culverts to minimize erosion potential. The existing driveway on the west side of Lot 1 which accesses Holly Lane for the existing cottage should be removed and the ditch section restored. The end of Holly Lane does not currently have sufficient turnaround space for public safety vehicles or City snowplows. In an attempt to facilitate this, the applicant has followed staff's recommendation and is providing additional right-of-way and a bituminous turnaround the accommodate these concerns. Staff originally requested a 20-foot by 40-foot turnaround area; however, after measuring this in the field, if the existing gate on Holly Lane is relocated easterly approximately 15 feet, the 20-foot by 40-foot area could be reduced down to a 20- foot by 30-foot paved area. The existing gate prohibits access to Christmas Lake during the summertime. The gate is within the City right-of-way and should be able to be relocated. The gate is temporarily locked during the summertime with a City key; however, the Christmas Lake Homeowners Association apparently has access to the lake via this driveway gate access point. COMPLIANCE TABLE BLOCK LOT AREA (SQ. FT.) FRONTAGE DEPTH 1 1 22,879 160 167 1 2 36,387 158 204 Ravenswood Estates March 1, 1995 Page 6 FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance and 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; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding; The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage if the necessary conditions are attached to the approval. 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. Ravenswood Estates March 1, 1995 Page 7 Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends 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. 2. The site plan documents should be revised to show driveway access to Lot 1 from the proposed private driveway. 3. The applicant shall obtain and convey the necessary cross-access or driveway maintenance easement agreements 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 (1995 rate). The City will credit $2,500 against these trunk and lateral sewer and water assessments if the Ravenswood Estates March 1, 1995 Page 8 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 and $2,693, respectively. These fees are payable at time of final plat recording. 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 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." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application dated January 28, 1995 2. Plat of "Crane's Vineyard Park" 3. Memo from Dave Hempel dated February 23, 1995 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated February 20, 1995 5. Letter from DNR dated February 13, 1995 c,riLt:.. w stds IZ o CbO661k. 3lofN^_ 65 Ste£CZ � • 11, t-:,-::.;W o � `S 'ON AID ' :p v_ o c[ £0661 ! .n ;.3 = i �._ M,9r '' a)m 'ON 413 "+ %+I .Y�w f} • \ Itiia et.M1(o�6St ..•-1Q/ / -v^ � MEsq-L !O O /OOb ,� >- s:o_. . ._ . ... . .... �QN'u c) r V;(2:7", I Ir1. � & iii _ ._ . t-. .: , if \ ..., . \, L.......... rn ' r , In O s k .� bi; .)..., I; r `J 7 + a • pig 0N `� ' r f I . �� , \� / ,4 '..Wce.rt' ..my,N -h1+i�ttiA.�nr .'�r+G.Yi. h, ram. �, 1S -/ - V . . _ n ,s- o s t �,� rn - 1 W 2,i ai 3 4 � 2 • j 6 ,...) z VA `•:' - . `r J= y .coN cia J �J m^ o . ru) ( w, — o O r_1') r�1 ,L,�Y d/ t x 8 l l 1`�O� _gym a •a • CO "/ �1M�p ¢m a ` • �4.s9/ a vl 3 6 Y� JouB ' ,. x OO --;1. /.:,1) : Q Q ^ - !p 7 .. O !' WSZ a r o � 1 -r R /F0 iM % ` C. tEEt80 - •�o S 114 '� P.94'..1.1‘,.°011_ 933:J zzkY 0'Q. zo. 1 / -.- t. A. Q '.� ..•2,0 -7- — 4./4. \\ yjoZ- - ;� ep 91. �aLQti?SSVHNVH: JO .�y :; A ',..r4'� v 'w . • W'.Z ,' Zi \"' 0, M1fOS �. 00 / r `� t sl Q o w OJ J=0-VX vol 9°v-0:t�Np �_5. a . -0 j — ^� 1. \� d:7 c 4o m N 0 LLam-- r,c. / A 00 0. /0. ;.Y�.riL/ . t2 .h 4 S ile J 1 �O� W u 0- r I J 3 9S 0:S to 6, J / J c 1 Q )•- N�. i 3 S9 •l 3!S Is.4 0 _ ; p�� ff ac I A n i af. �`1 C` O 3)1t7/3 SVA/ IS/ -a I - a 1 1 n �*I • iii � a+ ` (n C l0 2 1 00 0 0 Q 8 01 1..._ • C w moi. II osvg-01 F 0. •I. 15" 0,1 I n r no. / P ry N • r Jl ^1 l .ro - N 1e ---.\--.' (1. '1 O X I (//()? ( 7/ / j a / N e//' ........-- (; �aool. yl e r x o S z N' I 1� ' I . FN 'fws3 Cone Go/wud a ' i 1 a1 sowwn ZS'OL1 ._._a--._._ �- . (ilipkN :. b b• J1/ r vtlS i .. _ m {/�r iOgre �4,i�' er1 1 ..'ws3fonar!lp "� a�raso3y :•` 3 Pasodo� L%, IItg 'o"sJ° N • ^ Wlir z � ,/ �" 1 1 \, eN o -\,"`(,../.- \'§_ (1 ir. '". : r- ( ° 11 -R9 - v 9, 1 n Z = 0 "0 b % ..o I m lei�_r�•l�• )c � •\ : ? I • < U I I r OG'91+� _ Y '* V w-N 0" \ f --. "`SSS I ` b 0 - , I I �N 3 1 Q1 r /O \ ` < r I -0 1 rf'-- E 1 -. q 1 1'2.3 b —R g if—, : ," >' .I =4 z . • • 'c b b 0 o ci3I I \ • • 1 Fb • NO m I i u } b ry i• • yI ,k %' _ 1�6 <[� • pip 's Lot a 0, �-4 00d r. b' I/•bI • b b • -\- — -'19291- — —n 11,E —,,n75- -86'01Z� ..------5? ' a b5'£L£ / 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: J U I L L. -CvPra 0 OWNER: M Cl l d loc.n g— ADDRESS: -2006 I4riorotAj �� ADDRESS: 1035 1- bn�y L&h& c/ (14s4, MN ss i$ �-hah -\ASSen ,MN 5s -7- TELEPHONE (Day time) `T7'1-357 TELEPHONE: 7,/0 )L33 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. K Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feel of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8W' 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 n.ltelyiK WOO eficS �e,S LOCATION 14c,II y 2-61.n c� A4 ss U-r, /1/v 5-53J LEGAL DESCRIPTION L0- (q c h k SDIA-1J /O DD o —P 4— Cranes ne y PRESENT ZONING I `S I REQUESTED ZONING S F PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION tYt s i d t-vs h f REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 2- 7Y✓ a Cr?S i I ✓'!11 dL,.,w,ti/ REASON FOR THIS REQUEST I O G'✓`L-+ +WD V•!S i I h ( �` S SCS 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. 41111.t 2 �S Signature of • t•licant I ate • Signature of Fee Owner / r.,? Date 4 /SO 5w3 Application Received on )/326yJr" Fee Paid c qco F5e4ci4) Receipt No. 53 5'70 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. t CITY 0 F :,, ,.ii ..,; . _ \-1- ,\ -_ CHANHASSEN . , • '.. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: John Rask, Planner I r, _ FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer -cr,/ DATE: February 23, 1995 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Ravenswood Estates File No. 95-6 LUR Upon review of the preliminary plat documents of Ravenswood prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. dated February 6, 1995, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE According to the grading plan, only minimal site grading will be necessary to accommodate the home sites and construction of the driveways. On Lot 1 the plans show the driveway accessing onto Holly Lane resulting in the loss of a significant oak tree (36-inch diameter). Staff has the understanding the applicant will be relocating this driveway access off the private driveway (east lot line) thus saving the 36-inch oak tree. The plans also show a power pole located within the proposed driveway through the east side of Lot 1. This power pole will need to be relocated to accommodate construction of the common driveway. The site contains an existing cottage and garage that will have to be razed or removed from the site. The appropriate demolition or moving permit will be required by the City. UTILITIES According to the City's records, the existing cottage is connected to municipal sewer and water from Holly Lane. Upon removal of the cottage the existing sewer and water lines will have to be properly disconnected according to City standards. It is assumed that the new dwelling on Lot 1 will utilize the same service line in the future. Lot 2, however, is not currently provided with a sewer and water service stub. The applicant will have to extend an individual sewer and water line from Holly Lane along the private driveway to service this lot. According to the City's assessment files, this parcel was previously assessed for one trunk and lateral water and sewer John Rask February 23, 1995 Page 2 assessment. Therefore, the applicant or the builder of Lot 2 shall be assessed another trunk and lateral sewer and water assessment in the amount of $8,124 (1995 rate). The City will credit back to the applicant or builder $2,500 against the trunk and lateral water and sewer assessment for Lot 2 for construction of the individual service line from the main line in Holly Lane to the property line. The assessment for the lateral and trunk sewer and water line is payable at the time of building permit application or the individual may petition the City to assess these costs and spread them over a four-year period with interest. An existing fire hydrant is located between the existing gravel driveway and the proposed driveway expansion. The fire hydrant will have to be relocated to avoid conflicts with traffic. At the same time, the individual sewer and water service for Lot 2 could be extended as well. The cost of this work shall be the responsibility of the applicant. The City will need to inspect the construction techniques when relocating the fire hydrant. A permit will be required for this work. DRAINAGE AND STREETS Holly Lane in this location serves as the northern boundary of Chanhassen. The north side of Holly Lane is within the City of Shorewood. Holly Lane consists of a narrow, sub-standard 24- foot wide bituminous street. The street does not have curb and gutters or storm drainage facilities. Storm water runoff is conveyed through a meandering open ditch section located along the south side of Holly Lane until it reaches the existing gravel driveway on this site. From there it is conveyed through an existing culvert system down to Christmas Lake. The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) proposes a sediment/nutrient trap to be constructed adjacent to Christmas Lake downstream from this development to pretreat storm water prior to discharging into Christmas Lake. Due to topographic constraints, staff feels a better location for the sediment/nutrient trap would be on the parcel directly west of this proposed development. The City has no plans at this time to develop this pretreatment ponding facility. The appropriate drainage and utility easements are being conveyed with this plat to install storm sewers and maintain the neighborhood drainage through the site. Staff recommends the applicant pay the appropriate SWMP fees in accordance with City ordinance versus constructing any storm water improvements. The SWMP fees were calculated as follows: 1. Water Quantity: 1.36 acres at $1,980 per acre (single-family rate) = $2,693.00 2. Water Quality: 1.36 acres at $800 per acre (single-family rate) = $1,088.00 John Rask February 23, 1995 Page 3 A driveway culvert will be needed underneath the new driveway to maintain drainage through the site. According to the City's SWMP, a 30-inch diameter culvert is necessary. Staff also recommends the use of riprap at the ends of the culverts to minimize erosion potential. The existing driveway on the west side of Lot 1 which accesses Holly Lane for the existing cottage should be removed and the ditch section restored. The end of Holly Lane does not currently have sufficient turnaround space for public safety vehicles or City snowplows. In an attempt to facilitate this, the applicant has followed staffs recommendation and are providing additional right-of-way and a bituminous turnaround the accommodate these concerns. Staff originally requested a 20-foot by 40-foot turnaround area; however, after measuring this in the field, if the existing gate on Holly Lane is relocated easterly approximately 15 feet, the 20-foot by 40-foot area could be reduced down to a 20-foot by 30-foot paved area. The existing gate prohibits access to Christmas Lake during the summertime. The gate is within the City right-of-way and should be able to be relocated. The gate is temporarily locked during the summertime with a City key; however, the Christmas Lake Homeowners Association apparently has access to the lake via this driveway gate access point. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan documents should be revised to show driveway access to Lot 1 from the proposed private driveway. 2. 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. 3. The existing power pole along the east property line shall be relocated to avoid conflict with the proposed private driveway. 4. 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 (1995 rate). The City will credit $2,500 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. 5. 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 John Rask February 23, 1995 Page 4 this work. The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the relocation of the fire hydrant. 6. 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 and $2,693, respectively. These fees are payable at time of final plat recording. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 7-ton per axle weight. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator g:\eng\dav e'pc\rav ensw d.ppr CITY OF of, CHANHASSEN - ` illr690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: John Rask, Planner I FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official all, DATE: February 20, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-1 SUB (Ravenswood Estates, Julie Sprau) I was asked to review the proposed subdivision plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, FEB 07 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis: Soils Report. A soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes. Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 2. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to the removal of the existing buildings and before any grading or excavation on the property. 9:\safety\sak\memos\plan\ravenwd.jr1 STATE OF ItHCEZCD DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106. PHONE NO. 772-7910 -'LO �N February 13 , 1995 Mr. John Rask, Planner I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Julie Sprau Preliminary Plat, Christmas Lake (27-137P) , City of Chanhassen, Carver County (City #95-1 SUB) Dear Mr. Rask: We have reviewed the information (received February 8 , 1995) for the above-referenced project (NE1/4 , Section 2 , T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. Christmas Lake, a Public Water, is on the proposed site. Any work below the ordinary high water level (OHW) of Public Waters that changes the course, current, or cross-section of Public Waters is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. The OHW of Christmas Lake is 932 . 77' . 2 . Christmas Lake (27-137P) has a shoreland classification of recreational development. The shoreland district extends 1000' from the OHW. The development must be consistent with the city's shoreland management regulations. In particular you should note: a. The lots contain steep slopes. Topographic alterations should be minimized in these areas. b. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore impact zone. The minimum shore impact zone is an area within 37 1/2 ' of the OHW. c. The structures on the lots should be screened from view from Christmas Lake using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. 3 . The lots do not appear to be within a designated floodplain. 4 . The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: LC i VEDA CU Y .. CH!1NFHASEN AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. John Rask February 13 , 1995 Page 2 a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist JR/cds c: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Kristen George U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann Chanhassen Shoreland File CITY OF . PC DATE: 3/1/95 C H A H H A S S E H CC DATE: 3/27/95 CASE #: 95-2 SP STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 5,052 square foot Century Bank building I- Z LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 1, West Village Heights 2nd Addition; 900 West 78th Street a J APPLICANT: Gene Haberman T.F. James Company Century Bank P.O. Box 24137 CL 11455 Viking Drive Minneapolis, MN 55424 0- Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 828-9000 Q (612) 943-2300 ken wow t Adrttnwfiator PRESENT ZONING: BG, General Business DistrictWoo ; A ModiAed ACREAGE: 1.68 acres (73,089 sq. ft.) Reiected „et' 4- -g,5" ADJACENT ZONING Dote Submitted to Commission AND LAND USE: N - PUD, Oak Ponds/Oak Hills Townhouses S - PUD, Target; et; West 78th Street Date Submitted to Council E - BG, West Center S - I -9 tQ W - BG, vacant Vit WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site slopes from north to south with steep grades separating W the site from Oak Ponds/Oak Hills. The property was used for storage of excavation material from the West Village Heights Center development. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial 1 ARK ren- 04,tivrip, - ! . WI %; D .421111-. Its .* a L E . 1 ��N\ L A /�C E �,� �, ��, '�� 4IFIAIWit•-. �� \ y 6 tug NIATI, lidos. .: , . a Al — , - MIN Mr* ,tit; -''.? ..'_' '� �� "coo ,PSN . - .�� ='�. „doir r1 e-iv ' 'kW , • illiV vvw -ARN --0 so Aviir. ,s , SOL OM n" °PFA'S1 10 OW %4 - <,N\ IV 411 al MA OPIP,P. At.:441411 . of — fat 411% vr, sow as gir Apt; 44Mor .-0 ar . c �NNA pA 1 �� '��i .. : is K 3 - - - aI �d�l 1 - i■ o PO `_ J._T 76 14 1 _ • iw LOCATION • Elir, ��......, tE 1/1 —� Ir11 Y di% in OM I En DIF: A V m W� a �C =u • ■© LI/ I:/ 1%1 Z-______ Cb , --=z WIm• ►n "i' ■M Z ■0111111 11[1 11U1] �li1 �v�� d wo I aH` vim c F E � '.4 0 o MI1111111 W. me � FT EE Ripa at ' �r~i 2 rowans /, i SG 13 d p RRipilirlimw 1%0. i• _..... ' W Or II RN � T WESTE � DRtvE AT....iiiNE t11GN� o = wOtt _i LAX go ,, / a ill, -moi ,,, <4. 01711/4,,.�� O •,:\161111 ` SUS- • z ."~. • iA ,:,,.D." t 41 sli �i 14111.-:...3 PARK I ` ":1'‘ • . ,eita1► r0/ilium gm i 1 #11111114-e. f__----_,-,_,:._ _I-- ----,----, \.f.. ' 01101140 , �•` ` Pr1© ©ittefi Mlle /, 's ____,„,,,__2_,-T4-7,', `' SINNEN onir* b • y ,�.alic 'f "1 w 1 CIRCLE r a •. P. a 44- �'►� ,') LAKE SUSAN 1) Nil ice. _._ _ lift- ab ti • Vallb? cr) itt sa 1 "f•k 1': FrAld ' 0 Va 0 Q 04)11, s eta II i .:, - • 47 t % 4 iti A1/2146 a i PARKle,ii,A I ,‘„,,,,,,,,,,iQq '• I �I 1 r4r*OP P100,Nis „ 6 4 fell a .."A 1 . :6 T H _ . !R ,� ,r: , i1UPUI PIP) I •av, Ig: • al ,• 7"I )n ;',��/ 4sjoket 'eTem .g.. a - y P -- s MIk� i ...jam �. Century Bank Site Plan Review March 1, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY A complete application was submitted to the city on February 1, 1995. The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 5,052 square foot bank building on Lot 3, Block 1, West Village Heights Second Addition. There is a potential for future expansion of the building to the north including space for additional parking. The applicant is providing 23 parking spaces, a minimum of 20 spaces are required. The site plan provides for 43 percent open space landscaping. City code permits up to 70 percent coverage in the BG district. The site landscaping exceeds city code requirements. The applicant is proposing smaller caliper trees for those in excess of the minimum required. Planting small caliper trees decreases transplant shock which in turn increases the rate of establishment and ultimately the growth of the trees. Staff supports the use of the smaller trees for all trees in excess of the minimum requirement. This development would continue the themes established within the West Village Center project through the use of brick as an exterior building material, incorporating a tower element, brick columns and arched architectural features in the building design. The applicant is proposing the use of a standing seam medal roof that will be deep red in color (cordovan) with a light grey brick (color number 8523 dark) soldier course at the roof edge. The primary brick color for the building is reddish (Amhurst Blend). The overall design and architectural theme for the development is established by Byerly's and consists of brick exterior walls with "classical" uses of arches, recessed areas, and varied building facades. The applicant proposes to incorporate design references to the Chanhassen gateway monuments and towers to integrate this project as part of the downtown area. The development embodies many of the design elements specified in the Highway 5 Corridor Study including a well designed and varied building facade, appropriate building scale and proportion, harmonious colors and building accents, appropriate screening, and the use of high quality building materials. Pedestrian access will be provided from West 78th Street and from the West Village Center as well as continuing to the future development to the west. This property is located within the Highway 5 Corridor District, HC-1 District. The project must comply with the architectural design standards within the district, the intent of which is to attain high quality in both design and construction of the development. Specifically, the development must be consistent with all plans and ordinances; must preserve natural conditions to the greatest extent feasible; must establish harmonious physical and visual relationships with existing and proposed development in the corridor; must use appropriate materials, lighting, texture, colors, architectural, and landscape forms to create a high quality design concept; must create a unified sense of internal order; must create a suitable balance between the amount and arrangement of open space, landscaping, view protection through screening, buffering, and orientation; must provide safe and adequate access and internal circulation; and must provide adequate separation from adjacent properties. Staff believes that this development has met the intent of the ordinance based on the proposed design and the conditions of approval contained in this staff report. Century Bank Site Plan Review March 1, 1995 Page 3 Staff is recommending site plan approval be granted subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. BACKGROUND In November 1986, this property was approved as part of a mixed use subdivision (West Village Heights 2nd Addition) including five commercial lots, one multi-family lot, and the realigned right-of-way for West 78th Street. In addition, this property was rezoned from R-la, Agricultural Residence, to C-3, Service Commercial. In 1987, the lot was rezoned to BG, General Business District, as part of the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. Prior to the redevelopment of the downtown and the finalization of the West 78th alignment, the western portion of Block 1, West Village Heights 2nd Addition was rough graded in anticipation of a PDQ center. This center and other commercial uses were never built, although all of the residential acreage north of the project has either been developed or is currently being built out. The West 78th Street alignment was modified and a revised road section employed concurrent with the approval of Target. The city has adopted the Highway 5 Overlay District. The standards of the overlay district include: 1. Parking and building orientation: • The site meets this standard. The parking setback in the HC-1 district are those established by the underlying zoning. The site parking meets this requirement. The building is oriented to West 78th Street. 2. The architectural design standards. • The materials and details of the buildings are consistent with the Hwy. 5 standards. The project incorporates brick exterior with a pitched roof and a well designed landscaping plan. Building materials are of a high quality. While the project continues the use of materials established as part of the West Village Center, there is sufficient variation in detail, form, and siting to provide visual interest. * The overall design and architectural theme for the development is established by Byerly's and consists of brick exterior walls with "classical" uses of arches, recessed areas, and varied building facades. The applicant proposes to incorporate design references to the Chanhassen gateway monuments and towers to integrate this project as part of the downtown area. Century Bank Site Plan Review March 1, 1995 Page 4 * Building height is limited to three stories or 40 feet. The proposed structure is one story of approximately 30 feet at the tower peak. * The proposed development incorporates the use of high quality materials in both building and landscaping elements. * The site design is such as to avoid the accumulation of trash, leaves and dirt. * The building components are proportional and relate well to one another. * Building colors are harmonious and create a pleasant aesthetic experience. * The mechanical equipment is screened by a masonry half wall. * The dumpster area is screened through the use of masonry walls as well as landscaping. Due to its placement on the site, the enclosure should not be visible from West 78th Street. 3. Landscape Design and Site Furnishings * The applicant's landscaping plan is well designed and incorporates the use of native tree species was well as extensive buffering materials. The plan reforests a site devoid of any vegetation. Where possible, the applicant has massed planting materials especially along the northern project boundary. COMPLIANCE TABLE GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Ordinance Century Bank Building Height 3 story/40 ft 1 story/30 ft Building Setback N-50', E-10' N-127', E-39' S-25', W-10' S-190', W-40' Parking Stalls 20 23 Parking Setback N-50', E-0' N-55', E-0' S-25', W-0' 5-110', W-18' Hard Surface Coverage 70 percent 57 percent Century Bank Site Plan Review March 1, 1995 Page 5 Interior Parking Lot Landscaping 8 percent 9.7 percent Lot Area 20,000 sq. ft. 1.68 acres Variances Required NA None GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The applicant is proposing a 5,052 square foot bank building on Lot 3, Block 1, West Village Heights Second Addition. The applicant is providing 23 parking spaces and drive-thru facilities as part of the development. Approximately, 43 percent of the site is in landscaping/open space. City code would permit up to 70 percent lot coverage. The applicant is proposing the use of a standing seam medal roof that will be deep red in color (cordovan) with a light grey brick (color number 8523 dark) soldier course at the roof edge. The primary brick color for the building is reddish (Amhurst Blend). The overall design and architectural theme for the development is established by Byerly's and consists of brick exterior walls with "classical" uses of arches, recessed areas, and varied building facades. The applicant proposes to incorporate design references to the Chanhassen gateway monuments and towers to integrate this project as part of the downtown area. The development embodies many of the design elements specified in the Highway 5 Corridor Study including a well designed and varied building facade, appropriate building scale and proportion, pitched roof, harmonious colors and building accents, appropriate screening, and the use of high quality building materials. Pedestrian access will be provided from West 78th Street and from the West Village Center as well as continuing to the future development to the west. The proposed landscaping plan with staff's recommended modifications will continue the landscaping treatment begun within the West Village Center project including the use of white oaks, northwood maples, and Honeylocusts. The slope area on the north of the site continues the slope established on the West Village Center project. ACCESS Staff has previously met with the applicant to review access issues to the site. The plans have been revised per staff's recommendation to allow for additional stacking distance at the intersection of West 78th Street and the proposed east/west service drive. The applicant is proposing a 10% driveway access on the southerly parking lot. Staff believes by lowering the site approximately one foot it would essentially cut this 10% grade Century Bank Site Plan Review March 1, 1995 Page 6 in half. Staff believes that, due to safety concerns, the driveway, parking lots and service driveway/street grades shall not exceed 5% slope. The driveway entrance at the northeast end of the site for the drive-through is proposed at 16 feet wide back-to-back. Staff believes that this is too narrow and should be increased to 18 feet face-to-face to accommodate turning movements. The applicant should add a stop sign at the southwest driveway entrance for eastbound traffic. In addition, the proposed "Exit Only" sign on the island south of the drive-through should be replaced with a "Left Turn Only" sign. The east/west service drive alignment, south of the bank, should be modified slightly to begin turning back into the site (northerly) to provide sufficient stacking distance at the next intersection to the west. Grading and utility work will encroach into the City's boulevard along West 78th Street. The applicant should provide the City with a cash security escrow of $2,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. The existing access drive along the east side of the site has a previous drainage problem. The improper paving of the drive aisle has caused the drainage to bypass the catch basins and creates a drainage problem at West 78th Street. The applicant should have this resolved with the developer of Byerly's prior to paving their parking lots and east/west service drive. GRADING & DRAINAGE The grading plan for the most part follows the master grading plan for the Byerly's/West Village Heights development plan. The boulevard or green area west of the drive-through should be flattened out to be compatible with future development west of the site. Currently the grading plan shows fairly steep slopes towards the drive-through aisle from the parcel to the west. Storm sewers will be extended to the site to intercept on and off-site surface water runoff. Storm sewers will convey runoff into the City's downtown storm sewer system for treatment. The City's stormwater treatment pond is located west of Powers Boulevard and north of Trunk Highway 5. Therefore, no on-site ponding is necessary. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event should be submitted to the City for review and approval. It appears that additional catch basins may be needed on the site. Staff believes that it would be appropriate to install a catch basin on the southerly radius of the southeast corner driveway entrance to divert runoff from crossing the intersection. This will be verified upon review of the storm sewer calculations. Century Bank Site Plan Review March 1, 1995 Page 7 UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and water services exist at the south property line from West 78th Street. The plans propose extending these services into the building. LANDSCAPING The applicant's landscaping plan exceeds the minimum required by city code. Parking lot landscaping must be a minimum of eight percent of the vehicular use area. The landscaping plan provides 9.7 percent landscaping within the vehicular use area. The applicant is proposing the following mix of trees: 22 percent primary species (11 White Oak and 3 Sugar Maple), 26 percent secondary species (17 Skyline Honeylocust), 14 percent ornamental (9 Red Splendor Crabapple), and 38 percent conifers (25 White Spruce). All deciduous trees being planted to meet the minimum planting requirements (12) shall be a minimum of 21/2 inch caliper. The applicant intends to use one inch oak in the landscaping plan. These oaks have a better chance of survival due to their smaller caliper. The applicant is also proposing the use of 2 inch caliper Skyline Honeylocust and sugar maples. Planting small caliper trees decreases transplant shock which in turn increases the rate of establishment and ultimately the growth of the trees. Staff supports the use of the smaller trees for all trees in excess of the minimum requirement. Staff is recommending the following revisions to the landscaping plan: the use of 6 foot high white spruce for screening purposes, rather than the proposed 3 - 4 foot high trees; replacement of the four Skyline Honeylocust in the landscape peninsulas in the front of the bank building with Northwood Red Maples (Acer rubrum `northwood'); and reversing the placement of the middle six White Oak and the middle eight White Spruce along the northern property line of the project. Using six foot high evergreens will help to improve the buffering of this project from the townhomes to the north. The replacement of the Skyline Honeylocust with Northwood Maples will establish continuity with the Kino's site. Leaving one honeylocust in the parking island unifies the plantings of honeylocust around the building with the honeylocust along the western boundary of the site. Reversing the placement of the oak and spruce along the northern property line will also improve the buffering of this site from the townhomes to the north. The applicant shall provide a landscaping security in the amount of $12,500 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. Century Bank Site Plan Review March 1, 1995 Page 8 LIGHTING/SIGNAGE The development shall comply with City Code in the provision of site lighting. Lighting shall use shielded fixtures and be directed away from public right-of-way and adjacent residential property. Sufficient lighting shall be provided to illuminate all areas of the parking lot to provide adequate levels of safety. 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. The development shall comply with City Code (section 20-1303) in the installation of development signage. One ground sign is being proposed along West 78th Street. This sign is eight feet in height and approximately 50 square feet (64 square feet is permitted). One wall business sign is permitted per street frontage. Wall signs shall not exceed thirteen percent (13%) of the total area of the building wall on which it is located and shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred fifty-six (156) square feet. The total West 78th wall area is approximately 1,020 square feet which would permit wall signage up to 132 square feet. After initial discussions with city staff regarding the permitted wall signage, the applicant submitted a wall sign plan that included wall signs on the three faces of the front entry tower. Each face contained a sign that was approximately 24 square feet in area with a total wall signage of 71.2 square feet or approximately 54 percent of the permitted signage area. Initially, staff had told the applicant's architect that each face of the tower could contain signage as long as the total signage did not exceed the square footage permitted by code. However, after further consideration, staff determined that the east and west elevations of the tower are not included in the West 78th frontage calculations and, therefore, could not have signs on them. Upon review of the wall sign submittal package received on February 21, 1995, staff advised the applicant's architect that wall signage would only be permitted on the building elevation that fronts directly onto West 78th Street. The architect then advised staff that the wall signage may have to be revised. 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; Century Bank Site Plan Review March 1, 1995 Page 9 (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 City's Highway 5 corridor design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, 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 with the surrounding development and enhances the open space and landscaping being established as part of the development of West Village Center. The site design is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. Century Bank Site Plan Review March 1, 1995 Page 10 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve 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). 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 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 to guarantee boulevard restoration along West 78th Street. 9. All street/parking lot/driveway grades on the site shall not exceed 5% slope. 10. The driveway entrance for the drive-through bank located in the northeast corner of the site should be expanded from 16 feet back-to-back to 18 feet face-to-face. Century Bank Site Plan Review March 1, 1995 Page 11 11. The boulevard area lying west of the drive-through 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-year 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-through 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. 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." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Letter from Charles James dated 2/21/95 3. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 2/9/95 4. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 5. Landscaping Plan for Oak Ponds/Oak Hills 6. Landscaping Plan for West Village Center 7. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Robert Generous dated 2/20/95 8. Wall signage: South, West and East Elevations (scale 1/4" = 1') CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612)937.1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: ., Century Bank/Gene Haberman OWNER; T .F. ,Tames Company ADbr !as 11455 Viking Drive „_ ADDRESS: P .O. Box 24137 1 Eden Prairie, MN 55344-7247 Minneapolis , MN 55424 Tet,UPHONE(Day tide) 9 4 3-2300 TELEPHONE: I 828-9000 ti. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements - .. 0410•1MOIMIAM.• 2. C-sndition& Use Permit 12. Varianoe S.:. {kridirtj/ csvation Permit 13. __,,,,, Wetland Alteration Permit : .� 4. 1r�tbrir Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 1 6. Pi*Tined Uhtt Development 16. _,___ Zonini; Ordinance Amendment 6. Re ening i i 7. 84n Permits S._ Sin Pian Review x Notification Signe $ 150 . 00 x - 4 B, x 8ftii Plan Review X Escrow for Fillnp Fees'Attorney Cost" $250 + $50 = $300 . 00 $100 CUP/SPR IVACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds L410ir.suo,. $Ubdlvislon TOTAL FEE 550 . 00 I A fiat Of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundarlvs of the property must lnoluid with the application. i Twenty-six full size j01deO =Pies of the plans must be submitted. BA" X 11" Reouced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ' NOTE • When muttip a applieationy are processed, the appropriate lee shall be charged to, each application. " EscrVe: Lill be required for other apptications through the development contract i ' INCHECT NAME.., Century Bank - Chanhassen Branch iolijiticAT1QN West Village Mali - 900 West 78th ltreet atikALDEROpirnoty I of 3, clock 1 , West V 11acile Heights , Chanhassen, Minnesota -0 •t - . e- I •P4NE8 INT ZONING •' BG PIBOUE8TIIIC'ZONIN0 BG PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Commercial _ ,IIISGUESTED.LAND USE DESIGNATION Comnercial • REASON POR#THIS REQUEST Site Plan Review of New ranch Bank Facility for Century Bank. applroaf o t must be completed In to l and be typewritten or oleaJ11 printed and must be accompanied by aN Inlormm)Ofl and planar rs 1►tro$ by applio ble Oty Ordtnaoe pt bit. BOtom flEnp this sppllostion. You should coater with tt* POONA; DapAnmeni to determine the speollia ordinance and proceduralni require ts applicable to your application. ) The is to oe i ' 1 11m malting apphoatton for the described aotbn by ihe Cay 814 that lam responsible for oosr+p1y irg WO al Oki his wIth.tpard.to this rabuest. ma saphastion stnlAd be pr000asad In my name end I amble party :intim the' oontactrra eny.mstter pertaining to this* plioetbn. I have e8ao#red a copy of proof of awrlarshxp ( r bop' al Owner'sulcate OanDtats-at.Tlba, Abstract of Title or purer**. agement), or t am the ,auArortzed petson to make.this apptcilbn an the tee.owner itis also signed this vocation. I i keep ttphelf trned of the deadline; for subrflseeion o1 materia land theity of this wirh aur estimate prior to any uhderstts►d twricmith 1 eeO�lOnelievo mer-b*rhat�totocresu tnlfexmaftlon have aut�flEted are true dna correct to the best >atithoAtabon pr0o with the study. The docurrterxe and t$ u�� r11 eller the Approval or granting of tdermas n1 a � � r* rsper y for which the approval/permitbo granted 20 days whh Ow Carew County Rsoosdee c ptrype a the' nal l locomen returned to Cay Hall Pieoords M7lpplberrt Date I 111 atm ' r o'/iv. Dante - 041000M. 4100 bnbn 1Relehrad Cif, L 1 a (Ci S Pee Pald 556 J ' Receipt No. `5- 7 To applioatA Ovoid content start for a Dopy of the *haft report w4tIoh wui be evadable on Friday Misr to the meeting. It nbt oomeaaa,a Dopy W the neat will he maxed to the appltorud`s Waren. I I I as 0 3) r♦ -1 CD m mCO «Oi444.4 3) a) a 0 -4DS ti% a -I wo ►fla = r• w 4Cm H . - F O '[t -* n m H- u-4 et H w O 0 14 0 --4 4) tv at CT 4-4 > O --4 14 0 U 1 - C! V 4-1 '0 CO .0 4a C C al •. >, c't 14 0 O Z 14 1t 3 It Q1 -0 r-1 co Us .Ci 0 17 >, O .0 W 0 14 0% C1 --I CO 0 .0 G .-104710 .010 10 14 .0 tG :3 4J 0 1.1 -.-t 1-1 W C! 44 4.! -r1 0 40 •• CI 14 m 0 v co 44 41 47._47 m a C U a w ® z 01 0 0 -•1 to 0 1) •.4 m o m Tj .4 -•H CO b cd 3 0 •-4 O ,C 0 .0 Cl 47 w b 0 .0 av 'a 47 -4 4) '(f '0 z ed 14 .0 44 0 0 'U 0 -..1 34 1--1 c'1 41 14 C m C! O c0 O c6 O CD G31•-4 1:1 O 0 -Ct 0 .0 01 14 a U •-t 14 a' m .1i .0 . .0 C b1 C ad 044 --t 3 47 047 >, 47 m Q! C m O 47CrW 44)CO 4) C t7+-.4 4 > C) 14 O 3 4J 0 o 0 0 at at O • TS a 0 4) C 1a b 4 m m G c -tet • 4.3 0 CA G U a> . w 0 O • 44 0 0 td ad G > 01 W 3 U *--1 r s Ci K H 1J QI 11 C O co .>; (1 co C •�-r1 C! r1 ca U C +t '• -P 0 rt 0 CO - > b O ops C 01 O o - w C 't3 at U • as -.-1 -- m 'n 0 O a 47 47 '0 G .0 C .4 > 0 at 0 0 ea C -- O C m m U 1t 43 .k to 0 0 33 0 •-1 '0 T1 47 C Q) v 0 O C) 0 3 C CI U1 co i! 17 U .0 0 O3) C •C -O 0 5 WdoCa .4C 01 C) -1 --a 0 bm .0 --1 -.4 .0 C 11 X CNI3 C 4 m W 0 E ( ad •-1 - 47 -- m d 010 0 to -1 x CO - rt II C > N S3► rrsp, 0 as x g - -P 0 os n o .. .49 t4 � ' " 0 -.1 © CO -'' .2 mm o .X '4t Ti' II 3 a m g T., -'c' '' 5 It U U al •rt .0 14 N O O .0 4-) 0 a c1 m o n a t31 a1 4) U --t 0 11 .--t 10 -4 b ,G > 0 C 0 0 m C C Ci C 4) m 11 -0 td CT 11 O 3 > 0 0 pC 0 () 0 43 C 0 C 14 • 14 U O .1.1 0 c+1 ---1 > 4 cd 10 c4 C O m 4 0 r♦ - 'CS Sr E4 WUHCCT0 Cr-1 4) 11 m 01 -•• v-•01 .--1 •--1 CO 0 E -•-I O ad U U O G " .0 •-1 0 w rn C m ' b L1 f 1 Z > -tet p ao al > 0 c' m .-i to C C( H 0 11 .0 0 r- tT tT b tT'O X41' 4 44C wO -.-I 41 t0 C C C C C 11 w ` O •0 1-1 O C C •-I m 4) U 43 U >1 . 4 Q >, 0 3 -.4 v Li .-t m tb m xr-1 31 73 0 14 'C3 . 134 m 14 a0 -C-1 U .� Pt C 0 N d 0 b IE i3 '' E >, c 0 n y 47 0' r{ a► 0 0 11 11 0 C .X 0 r- 0 0 Q1 C .1 0 ro m 16 at 4 U c9 O r- r•1 O co 47 V c0 O .0 47 W at 3 0 0 0 sO QI 0 Vso CFV .0 +�.0 •-f O CrQ-1 0It J�C1� C.0 4► CD U 1 a1 V 74 :�: p: 17 '0 +t ea 1I •-t CTCO 0 C 'O C 0 C) O C 0 .x 00 - 0 -.4 O C C --1 .0 1.-4 0 r7 ad x Z 44 ri .0 V co 36 E 4-1 4- Z /ItJAMES� R. HILL, INC. PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 2500 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42, SUITE 120, BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337 (6121 890-6044 FAX 890-6244 January 18, 1995 Project No. 4636 PROPOSED LEASE PARCEL That part of Lot 3, Block 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver-County, Minnesota and that part of vacated West 78th Street as platted and dedicated in said plat described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 3; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes 43 seconds East, assumed bearing along the northerly line of said Lot 3 a distance of 180.00 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 3; thence South 2 degrees 18 minutes 17 seconds West, along the easterly line of said Lot 3 a distance of 346.71 feet to an angle point on said easterly Iine; thence South 43 degrees 48 minutes 17 seconds West, continuing along said easterly line and its southwesterly extension 122.80 feet to the northerly right of way line of West 78th Street as described in Document Number 149663, recorded in the Office of the Carver County Recorder; thence North 64 degrees 03 minutes 25 seconds West, along said northerly right of way line 107.67 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 2 degrees 18 minutes 17 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 2 degrees 18 minutes 17 seconds East 125.61 feet to an angle point on the westerly line of said Lot 3; thence continue North 2 degrees 18 minutes 17 seconds East, along said westerly Iine 269.90 feet to the point of beginning. I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Iicensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ,Signed this 18th day of January, 1995 For: James R. Hill, Inc. Randy M. Morton, Land Surveyor, License No. 21401 !, / / ,,. __ • I • I:. ir • S :::::t:: • • • ` 'j'c•r . - u t� � ti ' ti 1 1r ,� I �. s gri II. - I ':_s. . .q it: .< . i 'ir i •1: !, ffi. '.7 • isl I ! slgs$� li X !t 4 prmI . ;eu�mni CC)) .C--- • II.. I j � 1 i 1 i 01.- I I 1 i i :41;-.:.e -f �I f.. a • . � :7 -�. I 1 1), 1 • 9 4 iii, i 1%/1 31 114 11 11 Y wl II0. _ .� Z • I Ila 10111 • ii veil "Hu ; _ �' nyrt g 1 H : i n rllllilIII . , , 1 u. A. —_ 'i• --_____� I I . CSAH NO.17(POWERS BLVD. I 1 %a --------- ,, F I i L.4 / • 1 I N I Bid fl, I 1 at' ') I • I 1II I II 6 ' / , •N I / / 1 l ,/ . _ t-�H - - -'is, -i s'i ."." , i .. — 1,:, il .. ..; 1:."...-, 1 1 8 ...—..•:,.. :' .._ .- ,.; _... s. ...... •: . ,-. ..„ ..... ,: :,) . 1 ., , ,./ ,_ ,, ,-. ,_ , _ , ii ,,. . 1I;ii,,, ,,i . ! /1 ' z ;i ,,i ,.•! .,!• ,i•t1 1Lg•.;.„ ,.. ...,. 1 I' ll ■-'IR- , � G 0 0 0 i . ,. 0 0 0 0 I ,.1...,.,...i_.... • .... ...,.... 0 0 �... ' r 0 0 0 g- 8 ' I ' . 1�l , tfy` 1 V I • ' ri IO iti i H II \111 IN .-.. I a s l "• I i 141 1 ' i 00 00L____.....„ , II1 1 ; .i . 0 0 0 KERBER BLVD J JAMES February 21, 1995 Planning Dept. City of Chanhassen 690 Counter Drive Chanhassen, MN. Re: CENTURY BANK To Whom It May Concern: The T. F. James Company will be the fee owner/landlord of the proposed Century Bank building and it will be managed, along with Byerly's West Village Center, by this firm. In working with the design team for Century Bank, we have made every effort to ensure a first class building that will compliment the architectural themes and building materials utilized at West Village Center. Furthermore, we are satisfied with the site plan, traffic flow, and landscaping. We believe that this project will be a handsome addition to downtown Chanhassen and will provide a real service to local businesses and consumers. As I will be out of town on March 1st, I ask that this letter be made part of the public record. Thank You ! ;C;T/fr,tg<---- • Charles Wm. James T.F. James Company P.O. Box 24137 Minneapolis Minnesota 55424 (612) 828-9000 REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT tot , CITY OF ,,0 , CILANBASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: February 9, 1995 SUBJ: Planning Case #95-2 Site Plan I have reviewed the site plan for the above address and have the following requirements: 1. Add one (1) fire hydrant in the vicinity of the parking lot island 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. 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. 6 8•' et inr 95.2 CITY OF • •. .;:„ - , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (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 Requirements-General 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,additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement 4s3 must still be met 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary. Residential Requirements(2 or less dwelling until 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4". 2. Building permits will not be haled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Commercial Requirements 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 directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Say Director Page 1 of 1 �4. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF \- ' CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -rte CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE 1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18" . NO 2 . Red on white is preferred. PARKING FIRE 3 . 3M or equal engineer ' s grade LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. 7\ 4 . Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE 5 . Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire lane and at least at 7 ' 0" 75 foot intervals along the fire lane. 6. All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel. 7 . Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. V - 8 . A fire lane shall be required in (NOT TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and along all areas designated by the Fire Chief. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention j Policy #06-1991 Date: 1/15/91 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 is Mme PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER C 1 A� kg INN / < F7S millipp JO vrt A,Lwili- w-roil; NOTICE OF PUBLICW tf) spNNlisA pASS ' �r a �� o p ND \- - -,.i HEARING d • Y o . - PLANNING COMMISSION LOCATION two •c z Wv a ': MEETING / LL, f `' J Wednesday, MARCH 1, 1995 _ Y W�� ; 11 at 7:00 p.m. _� c e [HAN R City Hall Council Chambers � . . 1 IwEIST 690 Coulter Drive M J --ti Project: Century Bank3 :,. . W .,.. „1„,... 9 2 Y Developer: Gene Haberman — RR .0100.4411111111116110 Location: 900 West 78th Street R� DRIVE RI E rAT H IGHW Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Gene Haberman, the applicant is proposing a 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, Century Bank. 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 February 16, 1995. • fi . Dayton Hudson Corp. T-862 Ted Bigos T. F. James Company Property Tax Dept. 4820 Hwy. 7 Suite 500 777 Nicollet Mall St. Louis Park, MN 55416 6640 Shady Oak Road Minneapolis, MN 55402 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dean R. Johnson Construction Joan Foster Craig & B. Hallett 8984 Zachary Lane 981 Santa Vera Dr. 983 Santa Vera Drive Maple Grove, MN 55369-0028 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bruce Franson Cynthia Yorks Luretta Larson 967 Santa Vera Drive 969 Santa Vera Drive 971 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phillip & D. Gleason Stephanie Pikarski Gerald Oberlander & B. Hayes 955 Santa Vera Drive 957 Santa Vera Drive 959 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mary Fischer Colleen Healy Susan Conzet 961 Santa Vera Drive 945 Santa Vera Drive 947 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 John & M. Linden Larry Zamor Andrew & C. Althauser 949 Santa Vera Drive 951 Santa Vera Drive 933 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jeanne Etem Tracey Waldschmidt Constance Cook & 935 Santa Vera Drive 937 Santa Vera Drive Walter Tellegen Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 939 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Sandra & Mark Berger Timothy & J. Jones Beth Traver 923 Santa Vera Drive 925 Santa Vera Drive 927 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gary Johnson & T. Brigino John & J. Moberg Paula Langer 929 Santa Vera Drive 911 Santa Vera Drive 913 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Patricia Hauck David & A. Mehl Joanne Seten 915 Santa Vera Drive 917 Santa Vera Drive 7717 Nicholas Way Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lori Carsik James & B. Lugourki Charles & M. Walker 7719 Nicholas Way 7721 Nicholas Way 7723 Nicholas Way Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jennifer Peterson Jeffrey & D. Miller Nancy Metcalf 7709 Nicholas Way 7711 Nicholas Way 7713 Nicholas Way Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David & L. Larson Gregory & M. Peterson Elisabeth M. McVicar & 7715 Nicholas Way 7701 Nicholas Way James & E. McVicar Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 7703 Nicholas Way Chanhassen, MN 55317 Alan Lee Peter Voar Chad & L. Lea 7705 Nicholas Way 7707 Nicholas Way 7693 Nicholas Way Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lydia Kiebzak Scott Grebe David & R. Hester 7695 Nicholas Way 7697 Nicholas Way 7699 Nicholas Way Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Joseph Cleveland Brent Carlson Matthew Mesenburg 7685 Nicholas Way 7687 Nicholas Way 7689 Nicholas Way Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Monica Hanley 7691 Nicholas Way Chanhassen, MN 55317 i \ i-i \ ri 1 1., -4,- :1-- k_ i.:„.448,. /4., .// zz .44 S1PL1,1 , 4 , 0)1' 4 IST // `rte I rn� RENTAL Nair 1:4-M: ' k-- 1 1 ;Ai$t\I , // 4 ./ \.. _ Nip \ 1 ) . -____1. I -,,. r 1-- -‘‘.' - li �N w k. riagb, IWii 12.4! oil x C . ..`;', ._. ig 0 1 - A - ' i *6fr--- 14q 1 \ 00 A -----__ El 0 1-;- iy I - A 116 111- - . -. • 1' ' - - i ' - ---_ 00 • r---- 1 auk P.! \ (.'-°--1 sr-_ *, 44\kilko 4 (.hdiaggP. - - --. A 41 -' % ---1 *! 1. \ V " 1 • ,___ _ it, Zil\) , - 7 P; - -ct:y-_-,. -. . ....i ....k.... 1 (___/1(° - -- 7:;11‘ - � 11. .\ Plim e 0,z) =IF ) 9 -,I) r'- -A, , -- ,„ 0 ' itior . w • .s..._!. I ii.-. 4 . A ..... , - Ai .c_. ,.., A sw• ''' lgr ' #A 0 . CI ' -I ES : p - ,-4 0 i i il.-F q t '''':.--'4' .1 . - -.'''' -• 1 si oak . ,- • L._ 0 4001011POW 4%;,-. - - lea., ..- tN 1 rgval I • •r , 717 * . 04 . 100.._. .. , 0 • - ' Po. - fif. " gl' A .14- 1 / A • • (a,. . d . / lir ' \ � . r Z ' --->O 4 ,-3 l'\ 1 , 7 • l.A.,1:41 4 10'17 TYPICAL SPACING ATCLUSTEREC SPRUCE TREE AREAS . I poi,t-r oil ..1 7° • 47 E 339 92 CS BS BS CS v- .01.. Ana. Am. e.• 4(..iiiih. Asim. Ans. • Ail Ais .•• ,, AIM lik. , Aims. n-- .:',,,,,:'-:-:::,::::*i::i::Viet eftrale!Ara'Ageing& . iUO•MO.*NW ta6=W". ..'.::?:.,d8i iirttfrflOriaVVINaittria :i'.i.:4.:":.::. .::a:Jr ,.... .7.,:::,:.-:-: .5*47qtyorgoili. .Tir..,or ---... i -, --,..47.7.-.Amli.Fw - . ;41.-1,7,41.,.........„..„,,,,....zr-c...........: :...:,- ••••••:,-:..7..„ :. ir.:•...-::74ifEci..-:.:„::::-.,.,4,0,...:.3:iiiir,i:„.1011.,Atakkleilltigllo... st.:Vilmillwri.....Nr7Ati,Ne••:.•-40,:v4p.- , ,,1041%„ " '• :-;:.::.i .•:::.............. .:.4.:.: ",--..-•tiblim zi,-,,,w es--- -8-::.••• -, ..'"Ir.ZWArbiatmadimiriNIIIIIIIIikailltilatait' _......_......________1 • , C -- ----- . mar•—• 4.-..... ..„..„1,,.. • •:::::::::::::• : ::111 '.6. • "41.1111"7 -.64.1;r '3.:-. .." 0 S .......,.j.....cc.), • _ _ _____ _ _ .__ _ 1._ ___ __ ___.: ___ ____ • — ____ ___ ___ -- -_,. — __. -._ ,_ ,„,„. -_ _ -__ :-.-. '— - ....... , 6::::::...iiii:111.11.kfiliP.:..i•:.-..2. %al..1 111-236-. RSHUuMsAGCLAGBR RO;,,U NC COVER AT RETAIN IN G WALL AREAS ---1 . • 1 _ -. _ -- 1 -- - -.-- ,.• iv .. ., . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • ' inima ‘4111, TAi4LES0:::.,:*:.::.:i•:.,::::::::i:::::-:: . 0 .'11.::::".::::::::::::::-.:::::::.i.::::::: :::::::2;:. ,.. • 2ND FLOOR RETAIL 1- . . •.'::0..,:::...E Aria pt:4::.: ..::: , ;4.$t•-•, • . illi'''''' `i-'..-:::-..,:i.c-Nt 1 . ltf • . _ . C L. :-.. • cop Alkii,.... W • ra..,a. . • . . •. ... • Nt, 8 'J.ct•c' - -— --1._ _r - - I-le-41.401- is 4ii, gi..2 6 :J. P.,2 .walowo(two . . . A 2.5r• ..'"P-101:0-44.0.410 • . 1C,`° \-1' • I • i ii . ND F1.5,:a64:rier , • • •. B.1/6i-1..1 : . • - a (.1) .:::•.' .:. . .. :.,• 0:H.::.:::_ . 0 •. -:,:H::: : . 0 . 0o...Hila .es::. .. . . . . •, , . ::.,.:... ::: .1 cs ..><_, ,.....:A.. .:: ::.:::::: ,00 . . PB ------. 2SC [_ i„.. 2RC 2SC 2RC 8MJBHJ PLANTING BED 2SC 2RC 2SC 4111 0 • • 0 0 -C,..)\ 841.14g:MJ -,- ..' •- .. • r) , ) C-- -'' I L - . - . . ::::.:...:.:.:::.•.: ::.:0:i 4%). ossAstia.t.as.s.003....40..0.0 .::.:::::.:::...,. . ,... :.::: ::::..:.. • — ...... ...... ....... ........................ ... .............. Nm :. :i:-•:.::. ...................... . .... ............. . .. . ............. ...................................... / . PB PLANTING BED - - ------ . ............. ................. . --------- -- ---------...-... .................. .................. - .. . . ,___ ..:::.-::-. :?.:...:.I., • .. /1-kr ST-1\- — .....:•:.... .a::: sc 41,:::-440 -. • . .. . . -• -. . . • • . ..... ...) 0 , .. . • ,,‘ ••-••,SOO .:-.. •:„..„.:. •--•\ SOO% ;\ :.....::.: . . • )1 \-..._... __I • . • ,......... < 1 ' ,-:-:::::::: :E.:, • . , •.. ' SOO - U .i.- --.::::::•:::;::, N CC - ••-- 'flit. 2st •:.,.- -:,i- ,x41 1-_-1 _ ) z .::i -:L De iLLL: ' 2 • . „._______ .. w. 0 ...I. — . :•• • (..) .i. - _ N:ot • (?-..-41 — _ .. . .--- .:-2,cs obi 4 L. . 4111_ ) . - par,sed,k,,..o..powee-trowolirovii• .. • — • . . At4:_:.. ,.., • % __.-IaL--- _____ ‘4164• '....-"fifilrPoN.V.:1P -119 al 2AM ill . •._____ 0 30,, ---- I.L.:. \......... *- • ._ :, ''',..,. ;!.. .azi:"Ai:::• Ali 1: : — . • ...--7.„. ••'•... ... ,-or ••9:67,..: . .,....... yr o-.., : Iv 11111411.•.. .?..), 4 M.,e< :...i::,:....:i:ik:-.: .;;.•;-:: ."."-• . ..; .:. -.1r- ::ii::::.:i.:...:i::::-::::::i.:::.:::.::. ::.:... ..,.... ... ........ Aiiiiiiiittik• •••::-. :::.:•:i:•••,•,•• /1111110 ....„ :,...... .. . . •.--------- .... ..... . .-- ..- 69 • . (c."'N.n. PS I 1f_l I ....3 4 CITY of . - 0 \ ' .-„ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official k. cpc- DATE: February 20, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-2 SPR (Century Bank, Gene Haberman) I was asked to review the site plan stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, FEB 1 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project . I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application at this time. I will note, however, that an address of 900 West 78th Street has been assigned to the bank. g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\cturybnk.bgl Feb. 21. 1995 11 :42AM BDH & YOUNG DESIGN No. 2184 P. .; C. ' iI / . k. --__I."i .. i 1 \• r i • I , - 1 • . . , BANK - - - -__ -� ..__ -. . ........ . .. _. _.... . .__ _rt h. • ..... .._.... . . . ........ . ._____. ,„:• ,.,•.,•• . :, , , if• . ..,, , % . : _ _ ..._„. . , . ..•.. , ../i . . — —— --—— — 100\,:;., ! :'•s !I!, :1 1 : - i . ! { , i i 1I ! ; 1 -- SOUTH ELEVATION- Feb. 21. 1995 11:43A} EDH & YOUNG DESIGN • No. 2164 z r — • • , 1 N . /, •• . • i• . ••• I ., ;� • 1 _, „ It-...,.. 1 t • � � x.,1 11 „ ! 1 , 1 • , HI• ;HF ' ; ', 1• • , . s . ___ . ___. . .. .. . ..._____ NT - RY _. • C� U .. .,B ••• _____. ...•_ . . . _ , . ....„-- „Rh ,/ . ,.., _ . . ... .„.,... .., : ._.„.• •,-,,„ ....... ,.. lir 1-1 I.i • , ; -.. -- I r I I LJ WEST ELEVATION Feb. 21. 1995 11 :441 PUH & YOUNG DESIGN No. 2184 n I: , 1 f. 1- r \ LI' [ I ` • l C En BANK ._.___ _._ EAST ELEVATION CITY T O FPC DATE: 3/1/95 csANnassEN • 1 CC DATE: 3/27/95 CASE #: 92-3 PUD STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow transfer of density, Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 8.5 Acres into 52 Lots and Site Plan Approval for 51 owner occupied multi-family units. z Q LOCATION: North of Santa Vera Drive, West of Kerber Boulevard and East of V Powers Boulevard APPLICANT: Mr. Dean R Johnson Mr. Brad Johnson U.. 8984 Zachary Lane Lotus Realty �•• Maple Grove, MN 55369 P.O. Box 235 Q Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R12, Planned Unit Development High Density Residential ACREAGE: 8.5 acres DENSITY: 6 units/acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Single Family S - PUD-R12, High Density Residential QE - PUD-R12, High Density Residential d W -R-12, High Density Residential WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has steep slopes on the north and west side of the property. It contains a significant stand of trees. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density Residential 4IIQ ** _ : ARE :�., Nr_____ '‘,:.. .rg:` ' ittatili (7)ta:4 Illo a4 ati : fil!_. ri 10 ..0 rim ii. -- .' ...--.1, ,,Jr 4, --=' /411E kt ta iUMME Igi : ;ct.�_ 41111111M INS stir ft) ,�`� " 1044.° v in. .` OW. it rave: go rileACP *lin �� ' lI iliP /o. .....• /atkt ' �� •x11:7rrr•� MWI&* ' ion% -411 • ".40k atift 111111142ge • El ri, • GREEN PARK � � �1� 1��lamm�! ��., �� Q` �! •• .�,„�� , t A iY E isle 1.1.4 s I . /# s A�i!V N 11a■i nn .7 IIINIV ■■ f„,,,„gr,„..,d' r11 talirgi ijs R4 ,, ��0 , ,t,-•�� ! 0 litell„-. .ink �ir� Pr ,.`-�A: v epi Li �y4 �M-r _... � � got 4Tp larlerk ' 11* Littfit.4 .11 g igum _1111 6067: .,,,......-maigulli tricitilaW gi,tAgo't , Ily ....... ._`1 .1k tn Z an am on ea wa ' Wt'tti L'AvA jfilmm, imiii4 0 %3 .- kr IN r wilutaitriltat urAi .Frin'44aL.21 4-14ilki R12 iin meow �� ■ "g 111111: 11111 lllllll 1•• i G aV MTai. lila iiii■ '' :SII do- ....... c IIPUD mil fJ . CB i I I 1J_IPP -- P i . YAlell ` 1;11101 5 -t 1 , t; ---qwea ' �a- xv 1'r WEER ,7.9 p _DRivE IGWA 0. IIIL til 1� - ��t 4v= 6 SUS . . _ e ��i .4.. : ` ;,1 ..3 PARK Z ! �" ��Y IA� IAV �_ IP ESSEV T �� % `',s :: i 6 '"!,1.4 vri . .01tilmir� � © 1,�Afr - `.� �� FOLK `�� k MAS SUF � ;' ; � r SINNEN Oak Ponds March 1, 1995 Page 2 SUMMARY The applicant is requesting preliminary plat and site plan approval to construct a 51 unit multi-family housing project on Outlots E and F. These two outlots were designated as high density sites as part of the Oak Ponds PUD approval. The units are proposed to be owner occupied and to be located on 51 zero lot line parcels. Lot 52 is designated as a common area which staff recommends changing to an outlot. The housing style and density generally falls under the townhome development type buildings. The 8.3 acre site is located north of Santa Vera Drive, west of Kerber Boulevard and east of Powers Boulevard. The gross density is 6.0 units per acre. Access will be provided by two private streets located on community property (Lot 51) and will be designated as an outlot and owned and maintained by a homeowners association. The site is currently zoned PUD-R12, High Density Residential and utilities are available for the area. The replatting of this project was triggered by a Senior Housing Study which was conducted by the City. Approximately five years ago, the City undertook an open-ended study with no preconceived ideas. The results indicated a definite need for Senior Housing. The City then took this a step further and conducted a Senior Housing feasibility study to insure the need exists. The results showed a deficiency in senior housing in the Chanhassen area. It also indicated that most elderly are being forced to move out of the City if they can no longer maintain their current homes. The City investigated 13 sites in the City. After two years of investigation, the list was narrowed to three sites (the parcel occupied by Byerly's, the parcel east of Americana Community Bank, and the subject site). The Byerly's site is no longer available, and the parcel adjacent to Americana Community Bank is adjacent to the Twin Cities Western Railroad. There are a minimum of five train trips per day on this line, at different hours of the day and night. The site would be unsuitable for senior housing. The subject site is ideal for senior housing. It is within walking distance from all the amenities within downtown, such as Byerly's, Festival, Target, Senior Center, Post Office, City Center Park, clinics, etc. The City is currently working with Carver County HRA to put a proposal together. This proposal will include 70 units. There has been some concept designs done for the Senior Housing building. Staff has attached a copy of the sketch. We wish to remind the Planning Commission that this is only a concept and not a final design. If the Planning Commission and City Council approve the transfer of density within the Oak Pond site, the overall total number of units will increase by two units but will remain less than the total number permitted by ordinance. The R-12 district allow 12 units per acre. The overall density for the entire PUD is 9.6 units per acre. There will be less units located within the westerly portion of the site and additional units will be placed on the northeast corner of the site. The current site plan was designed on the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and existing stands of trees on the site must be preserved. There will be two types of buildings designed for this site. Both buildings A and B are two story. Building A is a two Oak Ponds March 1, 1995 Page 3 story unit with full basement walkout and the master bedroom is on the main level It will be used on the steeper portion of the site. Building B which is also a walkout design accommodating the flatter portion of the site. Both units will have vinyl, no maintenance siding and an asphalt shingle roof. Louvers on gable ends and chimneys on building A contrast with overhangs with columns to define the entrances on building B. Gridded vinyl windows with wide trim, columns with trim at base and capital, and optional decks made of treated lumber will be provided. A homeowners association will be established to maintain the site and units and enforce their covenants and restrictions. There are two regulations which influence the development of this site. A PUD contract and R-12 zoning district regulations. The PUD contract has specific conditions which must be followed with the development of each phase of the PUD. The development is also subject to the R-12 zoning district, unless otherwise specified in the PUD contract. The proposed 51 units result in density of 6.0 units/acre. The impervious surface coverage is 35.2%, however, this number does not include Outlot G, which was dedicated to the City as part of the Oak Ponds First Addition. Therefore, the hard surface coverage is not as high as shown. The PUD R-12 zoning district standards permits a maximum of 50%. The proposed landscaping and tree preservation plan, Oak Ponds is well within the required tree preservation and planting requirements and will not need to supply the site with any more additional plantings than the ones already proposed. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication per city ordinance. One-third of the fees shall be paid at the time of final plat, and two-thirds at the time of building permit application. Staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions outlined in the report. BACKGROUND The City Council gave preliminary PUD and Site Plan approval to the "Oaks" development on December 14, 1992. The final plat included 7 outlots and the entire right-of-way for the extension of Santa Vera Drive and Powers Boulevard. The total number of units approved on the site was 209. Outlot A was the first phase of this development. It included 8 buildings, with each building having 8 units. Outlots B and D were replatted into Oak Ponds 2nd Addition. It included 7 buildings for a total of 57 units. This phase included a mixture of 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 plexes. Oak Ponds March 1, 1995 Page 4 SITE PLAN APPROVAL General Site Plan/Architecture The site is 8.5 acres with a gross density of 6.0 units per acre. The 6.0 units per acre is under the allowed PUD density of 12 units per acre and the R-12 ordinance of 12 units/acre. The applicant is proposing to develop this site with 51 owner occupied units. The current site plan was designed on the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and existing stands of trees on the site must be preserved. There will be two types of buildings designed for this site. Both buildings A and B are two story walkouts. Building A is a two story unit with full basement and the master bedroom is on the main level It will be used on the steeper portion of the site verses Building B which is also a walkout design accommodating the flatter portion of the site. Both units will have vinyl, no maintenance siding and an asphalt shingle roof. Louvers on gable ends and chimneys on building A contrast with overhangs with columns to define the entrances on building B. Gridded vinyl windows with wide trim, columns with trim at base and capital, and optional decks made of treated lumber will be provided. A homeowners association will be established to maintain the site and units and enforce their covenants and restrictions. Staff is recommending that the applicant introduce some variation among buildings facing north, through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, or color. Staff is also recommending the introduction of some elements to the roof design to break up the large spans on building B. PRELIMINARY PLAT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL Lots/Density The applicant is proposing to subdivide 8.5 acres of property zoned PUD-R12 into 51 zero lot line parcels for townhome units. The property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as High Density (8-16 Units/Acre). The subject sites are Outlots D, E, and F from the Oak Ponds PUD and was created as a high density site. This portion was proposed to house rental housing. Through negotiations between the City and the applicant, staff proposed locating Senior Housing on Outlot D. The applicant was agreeable to this proposal and was willing to revise the plans accordingly. We note that the Senior Housing proposal is at a preliminary stage and has not received any official approvals. All agencies that will be involved in the future of this project are aware of the progress of it. Original plans showed 121 units to be located within Outlots D, E, and F. The current proposal maintains the same number of units, however, it will transfer densities within the site. This is permitted under the PUD ordinance. Oak Ponds March 1, 1995 Page 5 The lot sizes differ through out the proposal. Lots 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 44, and 48 have an area of 2,312 square feet. All those lots are for end units of Building B. Lots 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 45, 46, and 47 have an area of 2,176 square feet. All those lots are for interior units of Building B. Lots 28, 32, 33, 38, 39, 43, 49, and 51 have an area of 1,620 square feet. These lots are for exterior units of Building A. Lots 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, and 50 have an area of 1,512 square feet. These lots are for interior units of Building A. The townhome lots are located within a larger community owned parcel, shown as Lot 52 on the preliminary plat. Lot 52 contains the private streets and open space. Staff is recommending that Lot 52 be changed to Outlot A. This is consistent with any community property which will be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Also, if it is an outlot, it is clear to all that it can never be built on. The density of the site is 6.0 units/acre (gross). Since it is a townhome development with private streets and mutual open space, the density calculated was gross density rather than the typical net density. The impervious surface coverage of the site is at 35.2%. The PUD contract stated that the density could not exceed 12 units/acre and that the impervious could not exceed 50%. As stated previously, this is consistent with the PUD requirements. The townhome units are maintaining a 30' setback form Santa Vera Drive. The 30' setback is from the PUD-R-12 zoning regulations. There are no internal setbacks since the site is serviced internally by a private street. COMPLIANCE TABLE Ordinance Project Proposal Hard Surface Coverage 50% 35.2% Setback from exterior street 30 feet 35 feet Internal Private Streets NA NA Density 12 units 6 units Oak Ponds March 1, 1995 Page 6 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication per City Ordinance. One-third of the fees shall be paid at the time of final plat, and two-thirds at the time of building permit application. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION PLAN The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Tree Survey Plan. One hundred and two trees exist on the Oak Ponds property to be developed. A large majority of those trees exist outside of construction limits and therefore won't be affected by development. Tree protection and erosion control fencing will be installed along the construction limits thereby providing maximum protection for the trees. Within the development area, 24 trees that are in building pads or grading areas will be removed. A total of 9, three to five foot pines and spruces, will be removed and transplanted elsewhere on site. The applicant will attempt to preserve six large, mature deciduous trees within the construction limits. These include numbers 1-5 and 81. Grade changes will occur around all of the trees, but significant differences will occur near 81, 1, 4, and 5. Retaining walls will be needed near all of these trees for the following reasons. The existing elevation of tree #81 is 989.9, grade changes will produce a 4 foot drop from the roadway approximately 20 feet away. A retaining wall has been proposed along the road and will help minimize any drastic elevation difference. Grading should not occur within the dripline or 15 feet from the trunk, whichever is more feasible. Tree #1 to the west of home #49 also has a significant grade change that will occur within approximately 10 feet of it. A four foot drop from the proposed grad of 998 feet to the tree's existing grade of 994.3 feet will necessitate the construction of a retaining wall. Because of the close proximity of the grading to the tree, it will be very important to maintain as much area as possible at current grade around the tree. A retaining wall placed furthest from the trunk of the tree as possible against the new grade will help minimize the difference. Elevation changes around the rest of the tree's root zone appear minimal. Properly placed tree fencing around the tree's root zone and construction worker's respect for the fencing will make the difference in this tree's as well as the other trees' ultimate survival. To the northeast of home #51, tree #4 is at 998.0 feet. The proposed roadway is 10 - 15 feet from the tree and will be at approximately 1002 feet. Again, a retaining wall will be necessary to preserve existing grad within the root zone. Tree #5 has the greatest difference in grades. The tree is at 996.1 feet. The nearby road and parking area is at 1002.5 feet, a difference of 6 feet. A retaining wall built to protect the root zone closest to the road and parking area will help ensure the survival of the tree. To fill in on top of the root zones of any of the trees will cause serious damage and will greatly lessen the chance of survival. Each of the trees will add considerable attractiveness to the site and its landscaping and are very much worth the effort to protect them. Oak Ponds March 1, 1995 Page 7 The city's tree preservation ordinance was passed after the approval of this development. However, under the PUD conditions, Oak Ponds should be held responsible to meet the ordinances requirements. According to their tree survey and landscaping plan, they are well within the required tree preservation and planting requirements and will not need to supply the site with any more additional plantings than the ones already proposed. The following change should be included in the applicant's Conditions of Approval. 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..." GRADING & DRAINAGE As a result of changing the rental units to the owner-occupied units on the north side of the development, the units are actually pushed further down the hill. This is due to the units actually being longer than the rental-type units. The units on Lots 7 through 14 are extended further down the hill between 10 to 40 feet from the originally approved grading plan (Phase I). The units on Lot 15 through 27 are 10 to 20 feet further down the hill. All of the units are proposed with walkout-type basements to blend in with the existing contours. Staff has met with the applicant previously to discuss minimizing or reducing site grading and tree loss. The applicant has responded positively by moving some of the units around and breaking up the massing a bit. In addition, some of the walkout units will now have 9- or 10-foot high ceilings in the basement level in order to conform better with the terrain. On some of the units, a block foundation wall may be extended beneath the walkout opening in an effort to reduce retaining walls and the need to grade further on down the hill. This phase is the third and final phase of the project. The site was partially graded and used as a stockpile area for the previous phases. Staff believes that this project will generate excess material that will need to be exported from the site. The applicant shall be required to submit a detailed haul route including a traffic signage plan to the City for review and approval. Site grading will not be permitted until the applicant enters into a PUD agreement with the City and the final is recorded at the County. In conjunction with the previous two phases, sedimentation basins have been designed and constructed to pretreat stormwater runoff from the entire development prior to discharging into the wetlands to the north of this development. The storm drainage system has been designed to accommodate the entire development. Individual storm sewer catch basins are proposed to convey runoff from this development into both sedimentation basins. The sedimentation basins were previously constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The applicant has also paid the necessary SWMP fees with Oak Ponds March 1, 1995 Page 8 Phase I, therefore, no additional SWMP fees will be required with this phase. Staff will need to review the stormwater and ponding calculations to determine if additional catch basins may be needed. The applicant will need to provide the City with updated storm sewer and ponding calculations for the entire site including the two previous phases. The overall storm sewer system should be designed for a 10-year storm event. Staff reserves the right to require additional catch basins as needed depending on review of the storm sewer calculations. EROSION CONTROL The grading proposes erosion control measures throughout the site. Staff recommends that Type HI erosion control fence be installed and maintained along the westerly perimeter of the grading limits adjacent to the wetlands. The remaining erosion control measures adjacent to Santa Vera Drive may be the City's Type I erosion control fence as shown on the plans. Additional erosion control fence may be required behind the south curb line of Kimberly Lane to help minimize erosion into the street and storm sewer system during construction of the units. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be in accordance with the Best Management Practice Handbook. The site shall be immediately reseeded and mulched upon completion of the site grading unless the Best Management Practice Handbook dictates otherwise. UTILITIES Municipal utilities are available to the site from Santa Vera Drive. The applicant previously installed sanitary sewer and water stubouts for this future phase. This phase along with the other two phase are considered private street and utility improvements and therefore will be maintained by the homeowners' association. The appropriate cross access easements and maintenance agreement will need to be developed and recorded by the applicant. Review of the utility construction plans were not fully completed at time of preparing this report. Staff believes only minor modifications will be required after a thorough review by the City's Building and Engineering Departments. Since the utility and street portions of this project as fairly substantial, staff recommends that all utility and street improvements be construction in accordance with the City latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the improvements, the applicant shall supply the City with as-built drawings. The applicant should be required to enter into a PUD agreement with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the site improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval. Oak Ponds March 1, 1995 Page 9 STREETS The street system throughout this phase is considered private. The street shall be built in accordance with the City's private street ordinance which requires a minimum of 24-foot wide, face-to-face street section built to 7-ton design standards. Street grades for the private streets fall within the City's ordinance. The City's fire marshal had a concern with Kelly Court since there is no adequate turnaround proposed. The fire marshal has recommended either providing and acceptable turnaround or sprinkling the units beyond 150 feet on Kelly Court. Staff has reviewed the driveway alignments throughout the development. It is recommended that the driveway for Units 49, 50, and 51 be separated so Unit 49 has separate driveway access and Units 50 and 51 share a common driveway. Staff believes this will eliminate potential parking conflicts in sharing three units on one driveway. This, however, will result in eliminating two of the parking stalls proposed along the south side of the road. Another set of parking stalls that are of concern are the first two on the left-hand side as you enter the northeasterly access to Kimberly Lane. The northerly parking stall will most likely need a retaining wall built around it to protect an existing oak tree to the north. The plans do not propose any street lighting. The applicant should include street lights along the interior streets and intersections with Santa Vera Drive. The plans should be revised and submitted to staff for review and approval. MISCELLANEOUS The final plat for Oak Ponds 3rd Addition shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 52 for the existing storm sewer line. Landscaping in this 20- foot area should also be modified so as not be in conflict with the storm sewer line or prohibit access to the stormwater pond. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends 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. A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the private streets. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions/signs shall be placed on the private street in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control. Oak Ponds March 1, 1995 Page 10 2. Change Lot 52 to Oudot A. 3. Amend the PUD Contract to permit the transfer of density within the development of Oak Pond. 4. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached renderings. Introduce some variation among buildings facing north, through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, or color. Introduce new elements to break up the large roof span on Building B. 5. 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. 6. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street and utilities. 7. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication as required by ordinance. 8. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units. 9. 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. 10. 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. 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. Oak Ponds March 1, 1995 Page 11 e. A ten foot clear space must maintained around fire hydrants. 11. 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. 12. Building Official recommendations: a. Revise the preliminary grading & erosion control plan to clearly show the lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Revise the grading 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. Furnish details on each size of dwelling unit. These details should include exterior dimensions, overhangs, exterior openings and proposed optional additions. Designate which unit will be constructed on which lots. These details should be supplied prior to preliminary plat approval. e. Provide a copy of the preliminary plat. Review for presentation to the planning commission cannot be commenced until this condition is met. 13. 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..." 14. 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 that additional erosion control may be required behind the curb on the south side of Kimberly Lane. 15. 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. 16. 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 Oak Ponds March 1, 1995 Page 12 street and utility improvements, the applicant shall supply the City with as-built, mylar drawings. 17. 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. 18. The developer will be responsible for maintaining the storm sewer sediment basins until the entire development is built out and all areas are fully 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. Kelly Court shall provide an acceptable turnaround to the fire marshal or all units beyond 150 feet within Kelly Court shall be sprinklered. 22. 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. 23. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over Lot 52 for wetlands and the stormwater 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. 24. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval haul routes for exporting of material from the site. 25. All of the utility and street improvements will be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The covenants/association bylaws shall incorporate language notifying the homeowners of this responsibility. 26. The driveway access to Lot 49 shall be separated from Lots 50 and 51." Oak Ponds March 1, 1995 Page 13 ATTACHMENTS 1. Reduced concept PUD. 2. Location of unit on lot. 3. Memo from Dave Hempel dated February 24, 1995 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated February 21, 1995. 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated February 22, 1995. 6. Senior Housing Concept Plan. 7. Plans dated February 16 and February 21, 1995. 4- • ,,....,,.....;;.t. - _...•:—. . ,.... : • . -, dill ...:::.:ct i....6 i------. I ai ii . 4, isczo / t-2 • -.111.*.r. .J.:11,b,L4.; : Iii. ''' -.. - ..- - " -- -:lin 1 li '9.-9 PP `--;!*"-:41-1/141 . :• - -- . • ' : ' �� :; tt 1 r •�, :;. ,,.,. -- : i _� A..:-';-;;_i!';, . ter , �:._�N•�� _ • ! •r } 41r411.. . \ S . . . . E-1 -. --1 inip . _ 14' .." Nii„ , \\11%,11111 4, . 1 .,..zytioliki-4 1 fr 1 . 1 1. I -1 . 43 10\\ •. -al . 0) AI . . 11#11 11 .41:•"4 Ill AO • 111111i i .,, s s,/ t.)Cy 0 . No �, . i ../ Q o 0� ` Ill '.' - 1, •. ( iii _ . • . . • 1 WC < ` i�� ; -O6' . -I•- • \ / iii .O . • \' - . , t ._ 4.1....2,1:1".. . .. i ...riii\ \fik, a , u la 0° / Oat it al • 4.011 rll 1 ti • 0 iti ..kr, bol b. .4;5 . 1 ��.. fta,& . 11 * i.,-, 1:.7. , • 12Z11 I li III •-1 \S\ 4 .'k dikiall i '�is 1s ■ .ii o __, O ;in "a • ,,, • i ( -s I— ••••••41 ) tt 'ON JIJiH an' 1..Fas Al"I1n0, ici ntn1 sr 3 , V%-��• r � 1 . N r 1r � r1r . . . GN A.ta ��•5��r-�) traNe cTA Lin 10C4fi 51 - A_ Within lot f 2� �----- 321 > cp2' - H 171ROPEP1 Livag $ut%rD1MC1 I � I FROr r Uw IT t - 27 44 - 46 _ r I � 2' HK 28' 4 ' 1Li f ' PROPERTY Ltt1e I d u t trD lt1c1 L �' FRO NT UN17 26-43 it 49 - 5I CITY TF ,.., , ,. ts, _ , v CHANHASSEN ;.E -, 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: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 0 DATE: February 24, 1995 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Oak Ponds 3rd Addition Project No. 95-7 Upon review of the preliminary plat documents prepared by Meadowood Engineering, dated September 30, 1994, revised February 15, 1995, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING & DRAINAGE As a result of changing the rental units to the owner-occupied units on the north side of the development, the units are actually pushed further down the hill. This is due to the units actually being longer than the rental-type units. The units on Lots 7 through 14 are extended further down the hill between 10 to 40 feet from the originally approved grading plan (Phase I). The units on Lot 15 through 27 are 10 to 20 feet further down the hill. All of the units are proposed with walkout-type basements to blend in with the existing contours. Staff has met with the applicant previously to discuss minimizing or reducing site grading and tree loss. The applicant has responded positively by moving some of the units around and breaking up the massing a bit. In addition, some of the walkout units will now have 9- or 10- foot high ceilings in the basement level in order to conform better with the terrain. On some of the units, a block foundation wall may be extended beneath the walkout opening in an effort to reduce retaining walls and the need to grade further on down the hill. This phase is the third and final phase of the project. The site was partially graded and used as a stockpile area for the previous phases. Staff believes that this project will generate excess material that will need to be exported from the site. The applicant shall be required to submit a detailed haul route including a traffic signage plan to the City for review and approval. Site grading will not be permitted until the applicant enters into a PUD agreement with the City and the final is recorded at the County. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 24, 1995 Page 2 In conjunction with the previous two phases, sedimentation basins have been designed and constructed to pretreat stormwater runoff from the entire development prior to discharging into the wetlands to the north of this development. The storm drainage system has been designed to accommodate the entire development. Individual storm sewer catch basins are proposed to convey runoff from this development into both sedimentation basins. The sedimentation basins were previously constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The applicant has also paid the necessary SWMP fees with Phase I, therefore, no additional SWMP fees will be required with this phase. Staff will need to review the stormwater and ponding calculations to determine if additional catch basins may be needed. The applicant will need to provide the City with updated storm sewer and ponding calculations for the entire site including the two previous phases. The overall storm sewer system should be designed for a 10-year storm event. Staff reserves the right to require additional catch basins as needed depending on review of the storm sewer calculations. EROSION CONTROL The grading proposes erosion control measures throughout the site. Staff recommends that Type III erosion control fence be installed and maintained along the westerly perimeter of the grading limits adjacent to the wetlands. The remaining erosion control measures adjacent to Santa Vera Drive may be the City's Type I erosion control fence as shown on the plans. Additional erosion control fence may be required behind the south curb line of Kimberly Lane to help minimize erosion into the street and storm sewer system during construction of the units. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be in accordance with the Best Management Practice Handbook. The site shall be immediately reseeded and mulched upon completion of the site grading unless the Best Management Practice Handbook dictates otherwise. UTILITIES Municipal utilities are available to the site from Santa Vera Drive. The applicant previously installed sanitary sewer and water stubouts for this future phase. This phase along with the other two phase are considered private street and utility improvements and therefore will be maintained by the homeowners' association. The appropriate cross access easements and maintenance agreement will need to be developed and recorded by the applicant. Review of the utility construction plans were not fully completed at time of preparing this report. Staff believes only minor modifications will be required after a thorough review by the City's Building and Engineering Departments. Since the utility and street portions of this project as fairly substantial, staff recommends that all utility and street improvements be construction in accordance with the City latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the improvements, the applicant shall supply the City with as-built drawings. The applicant should be required to enter into a PUD agreement with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the site improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 24, 1995 Page 3 STREETS The street system throughout this phase is considered private. The street shall be built in accordance with the City's private street ordinance which requires a minimum of 24-foot wide, face-to-face street section built to 7-ton design standards. Street grades for the private streets fall within the City's ordinance. The City's fire marshal had a concern with Kelly Court since there is no adequate turnaround proposed. The fire marshal has recommended either providing and acceptable turnaround or sprinkling the units beyond 150 feet on Kelly Court. Staff has reviewed the driveway alignments throughout the development. It is recommended that the driveway for Units 49, 50, and 51 be separated so Unit 49 has separate driveway access and Units 50 and 51 share a common driveway. Staff believes this will eliminate potential parking conflicts in sharing three units on one driveway. This, however, will result in eliminating two of the parking stalls proposed along the south side of the road. Another set of parking stalls that are of concern are the first two on the left-hand side as you enter the northeasterly access to Kimberly Lane. The northerly parking stall will most likely need a retaining wall built around it to protect an existing oak tree to the north. The plans do not propose any street lighting. The applicant should include street lights along the interior streets and intersections with Santa Vera Drive. The plans should be revised and submitted to staff for review and approval. MISCELLANEOUS The final plat for Oak Ponds 3rd Addition shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 52 for the existing storm sewer line. Landscaping in this 20-foot area should also be modified so as not be in conflict with the storm sewer line or prohibit access to the stormwater pond. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. 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 that additional erosion control may be required behind the curb on the south side of Kimberly Lane. 2. 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. 3. 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 Sharmin Al-Jaff February 24, 1995 Page 4 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. The developer will be responsible for maintaining the storm sewer sediment basins until the entire development is built out and all areas are fully 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. 7. 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. 8. A no parking restriction shall be designated along Kelly Court and Kimberly Lane. The appropriate no parking restriction/sign shall be placed in the private service drive in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control. 9. 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. 10. Kelly Court shall provide an acceptable turnaround to the fire marshal or all units beyond 150 feet within Kelly Court shall be sprinklered. 11. 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. 12. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over Lot 52 for wetlands and the stormwater 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. 13. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval haul routes for exporting of material from the site. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 24, 1995 Page 5 14. All of the utility and street improvements will be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The covenants/association bylaws shall incorporate language notifying the homeowners of this responsibility. 15. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 16. The driveway access to Lot 49 shall be separated from Lots 50 and 51. jms c: Charles D. Folch, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator g:leng\dave\memos1oak3.ppr CITY OF 40p, ,, 0ii: CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official • a k DATE: February 21, 1995 SUBJECT: 92-3 PUD (Oak Ponds, 3rd addition) I was asked to review the proposed planned unit development amendment plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, FEB 16 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. Analysis: Elevations. Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments. While some of this information is provided, it is not clear in many instances to what elevation the supplied numbers refer. Dwelling Type. The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the Inspections Division,Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations. Soils Report. In addition, a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 21, 1995 Page 2 Dwelling Construction Requirements. In order to adequately review the proposed subdivision details on the proposed dwelling must be supplied. Construction requirements vary depending on the distance to the property line. These requirements regulate type of construction, openings and projections. Drawings showing the dimensions of each different type of dwelling, overhangs, wall openings and proposed optional additions (decks, porches, etc.) must be submitted. Proposed Plat. A proposed plat was not included in the submitted documents. Plan review by the Inspections Division cannot be done without knowledge of the proposed lot dimensions. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Revise the preliminary grading & erosion control plan to clearly show the lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the grading plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 4. Furnish details on each size of dwelling unit. These details should include exterior dimensions, overhangs, exterior openings and proposed optional additions. Designate which unit will be constructed on which lots. These details should be supplied prior to preliminary plat approval. 5. Provide a copy of the preliminary plat. Review for presentation to the planning commission cannot be commenced until this condition is met. enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo g:'safety\sak'memos'planbakpnds3.sj 1 rA CITY OF .I r. .,: \ -- -' 1._,'„,-' ii ClIANIIASSEN , --i„..„ . .._,_ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 j! (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN P UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4_-_, DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. E LC)or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambkr. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. r SE R �SEwO` WO r�� 1t- -- - 1 - - i - - -- or RLO t ....... Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. if, t «r vs PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 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: February 22, 1995 SUBJ: Oak Pond 3rd Addition I have reviewed the proposed 3rd Addition for Oak Ponds and have the following requirements: 1. Provide an approved turn-around at the west end of Kelly Court or provide access to Santa Vera Drive. 2. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be installed along Kimberly Lane and Kelly Court at 75 foot intervals. Pursuant to City Policy #06-1991. 3. Turning radius must be approved by City Engineering and Fire Marshal. 4. 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. 5. A ten foot clear space must maintained around fire hydrants. g'\safets`zuNiakpond3.c y \ -' IL , .. I■ ■I ■ f d .. 10 :11 . 1 . milli! ■111111i111'iuIIW11I , r ti� ii il I■ ■ t z ai■�i 11111 111111 in Hi ui "i II m ■IIIIIIlIII 1 lr�ll,1 !ii �I�_ _ LJJ CA / IL IIS I'll ■� 4 ' 11111 1111111 I- ■_ ■ ■� ■_ ■ . Z •IIIIIII111111111e 111 , I n� 1,t1111 11I„,, ,1,„, lk,. ■ 11111 IIIIIQ,' ■ ■ Hill , .c...), .II111id11,iiiiini.li .C! . . o Cl. - C ,� 1111r o a. 1 ,\, , , ,: , •-__=_,. •__„._ • ��' ce \ !1111IIIIIIIIiII1i11111, ■ V t!�I l _I- ' o Z i- ■ in I. cit v w Iqi, 1111i. \ III fill ce ,4 O 1 7 W ce COMMUNITY 1BR 1BR 1BR 13R SPACE -E 111111111E1 --� UP IIIIIIIIMI/ __� > i w ATRIUM i Di LI VEST. ENTRY F— a EXIT --4 PARKING - 70 CARS 4 1BR UNITS PARKING P[ A\ TOTAL 4 UNITS T ❑ P = 30-0' (EEE-EAssEN SENKR HOUSING C HAW 3N, MN 70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING 3 NOVEMBER 1994 1. 1BR + D 13R 1BR 13R 1BR 13R N 1BR + D 1 , )4- DIw GAME 13R 23R JROOM ATM w OFF. i LOBBY VEST. TR. LOUNGE AI 1B R SUITE 13R 13R 1BR 13R 1BR + 3 13R STAIR 1BR + D 1BR + D 12 1BR UNITS 5 13R + D UNITS 1 2BR UNIT LI VHL PLAN VIP 18 UNITS TOTAL 1' = C_1AN==7ASSIEN SENIOR HOUSING CCI LAN-HIEN, MN 70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING 3 NOVEMBER 1994 -/ 13R + D 1BR 13R BR 13R 13R N _1BR + D ST❑. w 1-1 1 3 R 13R 2BR _ • ' UM w ce TR. LUNGE �' 1BR 1BR + D 13R 13R 13R 1BR 1BR + D 13R STAIR 1BR + D 13R + D 13 13 UNITS ' 6 1BR + D UNITS 1 2BR UNIT LEVE LL 2 PLAN 20 UNITS TOTAL T = - -.HIEN SENIOR HOUSING C.. 1,LihT9 1V111 V r 70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING \ 3 NOVEMBER 1994 V L -V 1 1BRF-4 - 900+SSF 13R 13R 13R 13R 1BR - N - 875+D F STD, J 1 B R 13R 960 SF • UM w LOUNGE N TR, 1BR 1BR+D 720 SF 910 SF 0 1BR 1BR 1BR 13R 13R + D 13R STAIR 13 1BR UNITS 6 1BR + D UNITS 1 2BR UNIT 1BR + D 13R + 3 20 UNITS TOTAL 9V-2" LHV L 3 PLAN C4) - 1' = 30'-0" sN SENIOR HOUSING CC_IAN__.ASSEN, MN 70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING - 3 NOVEMBER 1994 u LIBRARY STOR, - w T Q LOUNGE I I I TR, 13R 1BR + D 1BR 1BR 13R 13R 13R + D 13R STAIR 6 13R UNITS 8 1BR + D UNIT LEVEL 4 PLA\ TOTAL 8 UNITS T ❑ 1. = 30'-0' CE-- EN SENIOR HOUSING c._iA V Y 1�1 E V y 1 V 111 V 70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING '`N 3 NOVEMBER 1994 CITY O F PC DATE: 3/1/1995 C H A HA! ! EN CC DATE: 3/27/1995 CASE #: 91-4 PUD STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: PUD Amendment and preliminary plat for Chanhassen Business Center to subdivide Outlot C into 7 office/manufacturing/ F-- warehouse lots and one outlot, Chanhassen Business Center z Second Addition V LOCATION: West of Audubon Road, south of the Twin Cities & Western Railroad, and north of Lake Drive West APPLICANT: Audubon 92 Partnership Engineer: 15241 Creekside Court Engelhardt and Associates Q Eden Prairie, MN 55436 Suite 480 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard Chaska. MN 55318 Action by City Administrator PRESENT ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development 5ndorEndorsed �I1�� ' �'�" Modifier' ACREAGE: 93.7 acres Rejected., .1 DENSITY: Die submitted to Commission ADJACENT ZONING Dei Submitted to Council AND LAND USE: N -A2 S - RSF, Bluff Creek Estates QE - PUD-R, Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition Q W -RR, Timberwood Estates WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. F PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Bluff Creek runs through the western portion of the property. Phase I has been graded. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: OI, Office Industrial AINAN fiecu • ��■■ i;Q�? — HILL lit« i:+` 0.3.-- !•e AZ'mi : ♦ II IF 1 I !�� `- c J'dBl .L1 ,Ariar'1/l f-»3t � L:ii��1r��7t�/ �\ I� � r7I11111Pnlill ' — 1e7i fOou� ■ 1 �, ��• BEACH�. _ dig/ C A BEACH \ 2R 9 ' E■lrrf _cu� • PARK �' S4tir‘': RI= 41,....4,�> - ge..t-i :lire 'rm._ -7a .r�i \, Y� �„c. _s.t F-- 6v I ' Nii '--'-^1 , _ VISO. km t,.11:1*i:if,. ' •i.rAltititk,.. %,:-._-,, ._ )0 4 I eir ffih ti+5 NtS1.1 .\ , , PARK --- NIIbSOM 111I It r LAKE WCY 'B�� -Imo 1.. '',3.IES�_,,t�I'; �.it III MI ----• - -Val' ra,7 i.'tii-dki::a O.-...;AP ,40%.IV Ira /--- /' 4or A I ,i,ill ,....t.,..!,, i '� SNOB AiildIHIuprA4 IIuuu► - E 1 �- �■ • F'AR Illluuu q .�s�I� •� 4 r` J^^ / MEADOW PARK�`�gip l'�oir r.�,1,10�� s,; jp �ti/ 1 LAKE ANN sAICIrea f ffAi.ibNNv• Bim■ , ' -. .1 A g lei 1/4,i i \ .:4..dri, , . 1 1 . . .. ..... •1/4_..... .....,..... 4.11116.1'14°11" 7111-•LI trialb*:'rt111419115: -- l AKE ,_,,,�c , .�� Flt. . I :� _ ANN .f� �Itv\ rr , PAI K I `� , �. I 1 • { 1 ..- `. w2Q W� w I I \ •i�j. �4 N ••Mmt, I I .n14---- --. . 1(1( II��11 w r 11111\11\ I ! i _� �Wf•l C WM l l .:. i /L! r ITIE ' - OET,7A 80ut. VA . 1 lI � .., ,,..... /RV ,.\ 1).) Cf le*O.:4%10- ,;"4111"IF \ ... . . ...")� L� ii AKE:. WEST PARK o = il a ✓ilbAN ' 'rE'`^'-44�; X41 a -{• LAKE SUSAN r a - .moi QJ ' 1 �' ='�v i y [ER . ii , 4„,.....,. let f �. =.7---,---7 Vii.-taqi E _ i`� e ....„.i.:. yr."Aly BLVD __-- - *.--.= . ./ -77-,.. 7.--......s.,.,+>, ' •• l.Oy',1 1 1 - , I~ ass ..,c a 8. :k .cs"1fA-T1 � 1 r• �I UI•• . - I vapg �'�=t••••z .• i J I.f. �� p g 1 � +�:::i �!, �, \ ..."-, 1,-..101-1L.;- sem_ tie �tAO'`,'!r, p I \\ 2%;-' :,IJ1` JM. " ' , .. - Ev.:R --' -_J.C�-1BJy_ll_ r 300 —1 —T�.� ('�J p$SEN i -— —� �MAiS pARK e - I r+ MIL oy4./ .• . 310?� 1 A. = 1 QQOQ/ I _ /PA. j u e....... no1 �_ •\ I i 1 PAPP 1(----� �� .1 // - 9DOO / I 1 i _r 350^.---- - m � ry`ti - -- - ---T— ••'c' - 'A 1 .e• _ •roes I WKS " - t:LS'++•tOfT.v'w'•.aa KS'Nn•31b.ibd N303 o« W� . p' m'Ltra•oa•.rru.0-11.L:I. "" �•'=1.6 Y31SYn 3iN3J SS3N6ne C3SS•NNAN 1Yt103 305)13383 1KS. —444 SY33�ONi:'.4'•'S'.:: n•]s NOU. f]YLSNO3 Y0i ION d�N583NiN,d Z6 NOBO0OY �� '3.Y.520'0055v 1CY•.3irN3 A ntll:x . SNVld ANNNIWII3Yd .o.....x aw .• -4— ,""Yr: a-a:iia ' LD7Oa< I a]wW S«01SN]a -«G.•?aua]] a��•�«i . G•OY !r -__-----•---mow._._------ •__< • �� ,� '': :':4014:♦♦f♦♦♦0♦ ♦♦ryj♦♦2.tP•A►i Yl q,�' `'• 5 6.�, 000/0♦i t♦♦ {♦00;0411-•1;y J �\�'�s.,''�` . .., .�,.6.• ' o• ':•; "<::<:r 0♦♦404.044♦0♦♦.•\4.101044•��:r•0♦0, • \�i „ ��'OiO- 42,600.00*V\46°I 00.'144.44 2*\;•,\:\\ r: •,3 +ss't340000♦0;00.0•*0 4•l4000 W....),11, ►0U':' :.N i/_ m . _ JTIT , •ic • • k . 4•0•••••• .� .:'.0�0�p�♦.s♦♦44a♦.400♦1. .t� W, a .04.•0♦♦(0♦11,11'.*, .10,0\.4�4'►v,0......•ii 0.v N.y`. d• ,fir - ♦,.I• g ieel'O f •.1 . ......0.44♦♦.0•••4:.�� e a \ 'fes ..__Cr),. ... .1%.‘‘ W W g is i. V/ T :I .A9 : :? I j; u ii O �\ fi SN E.' f< I - �� !j m :1 -3 g "...t. 1.2:1.1\N2. \-- —=.---..=.' I....="*-= LI 4.1 ! !! 3: : i ! i ;LS is — mor 1 •++ ,tom • \ 1 �s i3 i : 3 t .JL • 3i ill : \ i1A1 o f t 3 f rr�� f }t ! f : : \ z m • I Till ! E fE f \ 't fiB ! ! ] ? Le I I r: t I I t ! I iblit l i ! 11 tiiiii.i it ! ! % ` m ¢ f .1 !I 1 1 1 11 a • I 4L ;�f . e-!1 .1' 1 !i aaz:1- r c b-\ L 1 [ i 1111 1 ! 11 i 0 1 1 6 1 \ i \ Chanhassen Business Center March 1, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY 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 of 1993 to allow for a church as a permitted use. The Chanhassen Business Center is an industrial/office park 93.7 acres in size. 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 developers of the CBC are proposing to revise their plat to provide for a few more lots, reduce the amount of grading and relocate the storm water pond. The second component of the request is preliminary plat approval for 7 lots and one outlots. This will be the second addition of the business center. The proposed mix of uses will remain the same - 20% office, 25% manufacturing and 55% warehouse. The new proposal will ultimately have 603,500 square feet of building with 60% impervious surface. The revised PUD will be designed to follow the development and design guidelines established in the original PUD. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Trunk Highway 5 and Audubon Road is expected to be necessary in the next few years. A condition in the development contract for Chanhassen Business Center Phase I required the applicant to provide the City with financial security to guarantee payment of the developer's share of the traffic signal for the entire development with Phase II construction scheduled this will now be required. Staff believes the revisions to the plat, the reduction of grading and relocation of the storm water pond are well founded and staff is recommending approval of the revised PUD and the preliminary plat for Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition. BACKGROUND The site is triangular in shape bounded on the north by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Pacific Railroad, on the east by Audubon Road, and on the south is Bluff Creek Estates subdivision which is zoned RSF. Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition is located to the east of Audubon Road and is zoned PUD-R, to the west Timberwood Estates Subdivision zoned RR, and to the north of the subject site the property is zoned A-2. 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 Chanhassen Business Center March 1, 1995 Page 3 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 this phase that all required perimeter landscaping be completed with this phase. This landscaping will be consistent with the approved landscaping plan for the original PUD. The request for final plat includes 7 lots, with the remaining portion left as an outlot until a future date when it will be platted. There are two lots being created where development will not occur; Outlot A, which will be approximately 14.3 acres and Outlot B which will be approximately 7.8 acres. A storm water retention pond is being proposed on a portion of Outlot A. The balance of the parcel will be used to protect Bluff Creek, associated flood plain and the only significant stand of trees found on the site. Outlot B, located farther to the west, is physically separated from the main portion of the site by Outlot A. Outlot B is currently being farmed. It is not feasible to access this parcel from Audubon Road without causing significant environmental damage. There are no plans to develop Outlot B at this time. It is envisioned that this would be combined with other parcels guided for industrial use and accessed from Galpin Boulevard. One of the major changes with this plat besides the grading is the relocation of the storm water pond. It was originally proposed to be located adjacent to Outlot A where the city is buying the lot. The pond has now been relocated to the north of the previous location, adjacent to the railroad tracks. Relocating the pond will reduce the amount of grading required. The perimeter landscaping and trail have been modified in this area to reflect the change in the plat. The intent of the trail was to loop in the southern property limits and loop back to Lake Drive West and extend up to the railroad tracks. The trail shown extending to the south needs to be relocated so that it is adjacent to the Bluff Creek Estates subdivision. This portion of the trail will be built at a later date. The site plans reflect a required 50 foot landscaping buffer strip along Audubon Road and a 100 foot landscaping buffer along the southern property line. The higher profile, more office-oriented buildings will be oriented toward Audubon Road. Near the central portions of the site and the western edge, higher density development is shown. This would include Lot 6, Block 1 of the Second Addition and future lots along Audubon Road. The industrial/office zoning standard for impervious surface is a maximum of 70 percent. The plan has less intensity than the previous plan and meets the standards of the zoning district. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The development standards will remain the same as previously approved with the PUD. a. Intent Chanhassen Business Center March 1, 1995 Page 4 The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial/office park. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. 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. 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: Building Parking Audubon Road Buffer & Setback 50' plus 50' 50' plus 10' South Property Line & Setback 100" plus 50' 100' plus 10' Front & Rear ROW on Lake Drive 25' 15' Interior Side Lot Line 10' 10' Railroad Right of Way 30' 30' Audubon Road north of Lake Drive 50' 20' Chanhassen Business Center March 1, 1995 Page 5 d. Development Standards Tabulation Box Existing Developed Sites Block Lot # Lot Acres Bldg Sq. Ft. Bldg Coverage Impervious 1 1 2.00 5,000 6.3% 45% 2 1 10.00 22,000 5.1% 16% Subtotal 12.00 27,500 avg. 5.7% avg. 30.5% Outlot D (Block 1, Lots 1 & 2) Block Lot # Lot Acres Bldg Sq. Ft. Bldg Coverage Impervious 1 4.5 57,000 29% 60% 2 4.0 44,000 25% 60% Subtotal 8.50 101,000 avg. 27 9c avg. 60% Second Addition (Outlot A) Lot # Lot Size - Acres Building Sq. Ft. Building Impervious Coverage 1 5.95 30,000 12% 30% 2 6.13 36,000 13% 35% 3 6.14 69,000 26% 67% 4 5.47 75,000 31 c/c 79% 5 5.39 75,000 31% 78% Road 2.82 Subtotal 31.90 283,000 avg. 22.6 avg. 58.5 Chanhassen Business Center March 1, 1995 Page 6 Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition Lot # Lot Size - Acres Building Sq. Ft. Building Impervious Coverage 1 3.56 40,000 26% 67% 2 1.55 17,000 26% 65% 3 1.81 19,000 24% 63% 4 2.68 34,000 29% 76% 5 2.42 29,000 28% 72% 6 2.74 27,000 23% 59% 7 2.16 26,000 28% 72% Road 1.60 67% Subtotal 18.52 192,000 267c 68% TOTAL 93.02 603,500 23% 60% The average hard surface coverage does not include Outlots A and B. The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for office and industrial uses. The proposed development meets this standard with an average of 62% hard surface coverage. Building Square Footage Breakdown 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. 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 Chanhassen Business Center March 1, 1995 Page 7 compatible to the building. 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. f. Site Landscaping and Screening 1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I area to be installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping being required ahead of individual site plan approvals but we believe the buffer yard and plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 2. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Chanhassen Business Center March 1, 1995 Page 8 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. g. Signage 1. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. 2. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. All signs require a separate permit. 3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. 4. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. h. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. The applicant's proposal is consistent with the lighting standards for the PUD ordinance. The plans do not provide for street lighting. As with previous industrial parks/roadways, the City has required the developer to install street lights throughout the street system. The street lights should be designed consistent with the existing lighting along Audubon Road. Chanhassen Business Center March 1, 1995 Page 9 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 candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Tree Preservation/Landscaping The PUD landscape plan identifies plant material locations along the entire perimeter of the CBC, the proposed Lake Drive roadway and two typical planting plans for the individual lots. Phase I planting shall occur upon completion of the utility construction for Phase I. The landscaping as required in the PUD ordinance shall act as a buffer screen to adjoining properties. As currently planned, the City will take title to Outlot A and permanently protect and maintain this area. There is a large stand of mature trees approximately 6 acres in size. The applicants are planning to preserve the existing mature stand of trees which include oak, ash, basswood and ironwood, ranging in size from new growth to 30' caliper. There are no other significant stands of trees found on the property. PARK AND RECREATION A looped trail system is being proposed for the north side of Lake Drive. This trail system will tie into the proposed trails for Heron Drive, Lake Drive West and access under the railroad tracks. The applicant will be required to pay the park dedication fee and trail fees as per city ordinance. No development shall occur on Outlot A and it shall be preserved as open space. The trail should be modified in Outlot A to follow the eastern edge of Bluff Creek Estates. The completion of the trail should be made when this portion of the site is platted. The trails, however, are not proposed to be constructed at this time since all of the trails are located in a future phase. Security to guarantee easements and future construction of trails should be included in the development contract for the Second Addition. GRADING AND DRAINAGE On June 14, 1993, the City Council approved a development contract for site grading of the first phase of this development. The site was only partially graded due to the magnitude of earthwork, uncertainties of the future phases and the financial burden of grading the entire site. The grading plans for this Second Addition proposes rough grading the remaining portions of Phase I and replacing the temporary storm pond with a permanent ponding facility. Customized Chanhassen Business Center March 1, 1995 Page 10 grading may still be required in the future on individual sites as the parcels develop into their specific uses. However, the bulk of the grading will be completed with this project. Staff assumes the earthwork on the site balances and therefore no material will be exported from the site. If there is excess material to be hauled off-site, staff recommends the applicant submit a detailed haul route to the City for review and approval. A storm drainage system has been designed to accommodate the entire site. Only portions of the system (Lots 1 through 7 and A and B Streets) will be constructed at this time. Individual storm sewer service leads are proposed for each lot to convey runoff to the proposed permanent storm water pond on Outlot A of the Second Addition. The proposed storm water pond has been designed in general accordance with the city's Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP)for both water quality and quantity functions. Therefore, the water quality fees and the water quantity fees will be reduced accordingly. Staff will review the storm water and ponding calculations to determine the final SWMP water quantity fees. The applicant should provide the city with updated storm sewer and ponding calculations for the entire site including Phase I. The overall development should be designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations for a 100 year storm event- 24 hour duration. The city's SWMP indicates a discharge rate of 2.5 cfs. from the permanent pond. The final pond design appears to be fairly close to the city's design requirements. However, the applicant should verify that the pond design will have 3:1 side slopes with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level for the first one foot depth of water or 4:1 side slopes overall. 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). UTILITIES Municipal utilities are available to the site. In conjunction with the city's Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sewer and Water Improvement Project, the city installed utilities along Lake Drive West. The plans propose on extending utilities from Lake Drive West to service the new lots in the Second Addition. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications in accordance with the city's latest edition of Standards and Specifications Detailed Plates will be required for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with the final platting procedures. In addition, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the city and provide the city with the necessary financial security and to guarantee installation of the site improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval. STREETS Lake Drive West is partially constructed from Audubon Road to Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center (National Weather Service site). A temporary cul-de-sac was constructed at the Chanhassen Business Center March 1, 1995 Page 11 end of Lake Drive West to accommodate turning movements. The applicant is not proposing to extend Lake Drive West at this time. The plans propose on extending a northerly street from Lake Drive West into two cul-de-sacs to service the Second Addition. The street design is in accordance with the city's commercial standards and the necessary right-of-way is being provided. Street grades will also fall within the city's guidelines. In conjunction with the first phase, a condition was placed in the development contract requiring street lights be installed throughout the development. At that time, staff was requested by the applicant to minimize the number of street lights from an economic standpoint with the initial phase. A condition in the development contract required that the remainder of the street lights be installed with the second phase. The location of the street lights were to be approved by the city. Therefore, with this phase additional street lights will be required along Lake Drive West and the new streets proposed within the Second Addition. Street lights should be installed at 150 - 200 foot intervals. The 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 corten steel pole). The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Trunk Highway 5 and Audubon Road is expected to be necessary in the next few years. A condition in the development contract for Chanhassen Business Center Phase I required the applicant to provide the City with financial security to guarantee payment of the developer's share of the traffic signal for the entire development with Phase II construction. This proposal will now activate this condition. Staff will have to estimate the developer's share of the local cost participation of the signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume on Audubon Road. This estimate will be included in the development contract security requirements. EROSION CONTROL The grading plan proposes erosion control measures throughout the site. Staff recommends that Type III erosion control fence be installed and maintained along the westerly perimeter of the grading limits adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor. The remaining erosion control measures may be the city's Type I erosion control fence. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be in accordance with the city's Best Management Practices Handbook. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the PUD amendment and preliminary plat of 7 lots and one outlot for Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition as shown on the plans dated February 21, 1995 and subject to the following conditions: Chanhassen Business Center March 1, 1995 Page 12 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 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 installed at 150 - 200 foot intervals. The 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 corten 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-out." 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 the final plat being recorded. Chanhassen Business Center March 1, 1995 Page 13 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 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 ordinance. 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 contact for the Second Addition." Attachments 1. Letter from Bill Engelhardt dated February 14, 1995 2. Original PUD 3. Letter from DNR dated February 8, 1995 4. Letter from Mark Littfin dated February 10, 1995 5. Public Hearing Notice 6. Plans dated February 21, 1995 WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. ran.i«/lany fnnineeti 1107 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 f612) 448-8838 February 14, 1995 City of Chanhassen c/o Ms. Kate Annasen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 RE: Chanhassen Business Center Dear Ms. Annasen: Pursuant to your request, we have prepared a brief summary of the proposal before the Planning Commission regarding the above property. 1) This property was platted by Audubon 92 Partnership as: Chanhassen Business Center Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 2 Outlots A, B, C, D Lot 1, Block 1 - Developed as church site Lot 1, Block 2 - Developed as weather station site. 2) Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition Replat Outlot C, Chanhassen Business Center from above into: Lots 1-6, Block 1 - Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition Outlot A - Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition Outlots A, B, D from item 1 - Remain as plat of Chanhassen Business Center 3) Construction work to be completed for Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition plat from item 2 includes street, grading and utilities for Lots 1-6, Block 1, Outlot A (rough grading) Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition. Hopefully this clarifies the replatting process for this property. Very truly yours, WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT SSOCIATES, INC. William R. Engelhardt WRE/las I - i �- . . =r.' - -- — , ---.......---'....."-----..„;,..Z4 i ¢ < 2 \. �r? NWI a `. 0U W ►- Y ./,V,,-o O / . ----{-:---„":"-->„ 51; UN J y 0 3 I ..-• \ _1 , 9 : —I-....._ .x 0.1 0 CC 21.1 W .J N ylir/P"IN / Si. " 1 I 1 il O �\ ` �. " \ �\ � ''1 III • 7 0 \ \> ,,,,, TI . 0, qo \\\•� i! 011 , \• �� ( = {II \ tn. "i• Iklocc. 3 y 431,0 *41 =E al O 06 �� °i 3., 100 m-A co as o Z o -- ■•■ . I.--.( LI. 7 ck,.es E. =.£1 a = d�� is. r� ja: o�,mei 0 92 LidFvx Cm, ` 0 _Z CC12ti \ —^. ZO• Ci w o \.s. .--. ' z r I{I gyp 1 ) 1\... W II II• f I Il • Z t t I 1 �r-Ordi W ▪ - I SII . • �•' <0~ - ~ j Idi 0 .0 00 • Qo 1 ao / ��_• t .K"WO KKIKtIRt7��IRV* S 414 T Cl) an 1,....,„... 000Meer00000 , \' IV/ O 4..e.-_,-,i-,0,-,0-:•'!"-I e o: •n i \' / QW N I ; , • % s Z Q .. • , . . <F - e U 3 `Z:KKKKIRRatRK1 r� d0 H O p1 are+..-Or r..-.I ■ Q cc 5.0�(`�-aVn h Aal tV kr,• 3yI W 0 m> , I ."044 0 N \ e�A O i < Z000 O U i O O a] I _ 0 0 0 • yt au214wr ,0100414 14 a4 1 aco i��l�i 000 0(0010000 F- 0 1 1 1 1 i n p Q..0.000.000011 0 0 Z N 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O; p z W O 000000000-: OW V „ s. a"!da•( 57.1 O CO elf('. j �.0.. r'•03, N�•on - • m �.I.'. `-Y I I '�� CIU N) W,'•• m .f-� <i G cG'- . I-LY e0 CI n.0 N-O O n c e 0.0 I N O _ y O j••••U J Q�ff l'f C+O b• I r,G'f N <m h A --- . ` ��`� J J e• L'-.- L p •a:.- < 1.1- < •• W O� O - a n�n'e;ti e�s;.-.-ice U 0 0 J 1-1--$-1-$-$-1-1-•1-I ►-F 1-- I--►J- ►- ~O Z. 7 4 t QJ! a ►- - t ��nn��U�JSnnTATE OF IU�JZO � DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE No. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST, PAUL, MN 55106 772-7910 FILE NO February 8 , 1995 Kathryn R. Aanenson, Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition, City of Chanhassen, Carver County (City #91-4 PUD) Dear Ms, Aanenson: We have reviewed the site plans (received Februar 2 above-referenced project (Section 15 y 19d5) for the T116N following comments to offer: , R23W) and have the 1. The project site does not contain any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands; therefore, no DNR permit is required. 2 . The site does not appear to be within a shoreland or floodplain district. However, it appears there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. You should be aware that the project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations, The Department may provide additional comments on the project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 3 . It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which is good. We would object to having the stormwater routed directly to a wetland or waterway. 4 . There should be some type of easement , covenant or dee restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City may have jurisdiction over the areas and that ofChanhassen hwetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 5. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Kathryn R. Aanenson February 8, 1994 Page 2 b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan Sullivan at 296-7219) . d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ivy Joe Richter Hydrologist c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann City of Chanhassen File CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, City Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: February 10, 1995 SUBJ: Subdivide outlot C into 7 office/warehouse/manufacturing lots West of Audubon Road, South of Twin Cities & Western Railroad, North of Lake Drive West Planning Case 91-4 PUD I have reviewed the above proposed subdivision and have the following comments: 1. Add 1 additional fire hydrant at the intersection of Lake Drive West and "A" street. 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. NSP; Northwestern Bell; Cable TV; transformer boxes; street lamps; tree shrubs, etc.,pursuant to Chanhassen City Code, sec. 9-1. 3. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval. B:Nsafety(n1\914pud i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING L AAWrA�IC /1.____ i r, PLANNING COMMISSION I ; `ff .� MEETING .0 Wednesday, MARCH 1, 1995 �'- Alb PROJECT ' $ \` •N' at 7:00 p.m. `' "ION City Hall Council Chambers 'Mb* y c"`''' ' 690 Coulter Drive ; moi.j :I �• �.-rat �� V--- _ .ie ye•ms`s' . Project: Chanhassen Business Center +.'C.,•,u�%,�;� ;;•1i�% .!�' .o�� ,, d Second Addition �� it ow'`' '••« 'f :1,,71''i° Developer: Engelhardt and Associates ✓ ( 4'�.41�4_' nim -,•,-, , - V. •. --. f,.JmI ,moi 1 a Location: West of Audubon Road, south '�\� Wirt- of the Twin Cities & Western p I►` 1 \ 1 Railroad, and north of Lake \ • �I- - . .. _ Drive West • i Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a PUD Amendment for Chanhassen Business Center, preliminary plat 12 lots and 2 outlots and final plat Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition which includes 7 lots and 1 outlot on property zoned PUD and located west of Audubon Road, south of the Twin Cities & Western Railroad, and north of Lake Drive West, Engelhardt and 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 Kate at 937-1900, ext. 118. 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 Febru 16,I�,b. 1995. SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT INC SCOTT KOBASICK DAWNS CHRISTIANSEN CURRENT RESIDENT 8450 BITTERN COURT 8451 BITTERN COURT 8541 AUDUBON ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 COON RAPIDS, MN 55448 BROOK LILLESTOL BRIAN ROME MICHAEL G ADLER 8460 BITTERN COURT 8461 BITTERN COURT 8470 BITTERN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANA C BERQUAM JEFFREY ALAN KULLBERG MIKE CHOINIERE 8471 BITTERN COURT 8480 BITTERN COURT 8481 BITTERN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID KELLER MR. TIM BATTIS HANS HAGEN HOMES 8491 BITTERN COURT 2066 BOULDER ROAD MR. HANS T HAGEN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 941 NE HILLWIND ROAD SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55432 HANS HAGEN HOM MR. RICHARD BALM MR. BRIAN BISCHOFF MR. HANS T, GEN 2093 BOULDER ROAD 2094 BOULDER ROAD 941 NE-HILLWIND ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SPfE INNE 300 INNEAPOLIS, MN 55432 HANS HAGEN HOMES HANS HAGEN HOMES HANS HAGEN HOMES MR. HANS T E MR. HANS T MR. HANS T Hi -' ' 941 NE LWIND ROAD 941 NE LLWIND ROAD 941 NE - LWIND ROAD SUI - 300 S 300 SU 300 NEAPOLIS, MN 55432 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55432 INNEAPOLIS, MN 55432 HANS HAGEN HOMES MR. MICHAEL SNYDER HANS HAGEN HOMES MR. HANS T HAG 2127 BOULDER ROAD MR. HANS T EN 941 NE HI IND ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 941/NELLWIND ROAD SUITE 0 S/i33TE 300 EAPOLIS, MN 55432 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55432 MR. DOUGLAS L. SCALITI HANS HAGEN HOME HANS HAGEN HOMES 2139 BOULDER ROAD MR. HANS T EN MR. HANS T EN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 941 NE LWIND ROAD 941 NE LWIND ROAD SUI 300 SU 300 M NEAPOLIS, MN 55432 NNEAPOLIS, MN 55432 MR. STEPHEN DEWITT MR. TODD M. DOLAN CAROL BREY 2174 BOULDER ROAD 2187 BOULDER ROAD 2242 BOULDER ROAD Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MR. RICHARD ROWLAND MR. TODD NOTEBOOM JOHN HERRING 2267 BOULDER ROAD 2279 BOULDER ROAD 1500 HERON DRIVE Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 3RAD HAGFORS BRIAN REIS KEVIN OLSON 1501 HERON DR 1511 HERON DR 1520 HERON DR :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GEORGIA BLACKMUN DANIEL SUTER MR. JAMES D. JACKSON 1521 HERON DR 1530 HERON DR 1531 HERON DRIVE ;HANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CIN OBERMEYER SCOTT FLOLID JOSEPH KAMMERMEIER 1540 HERON DR 1541 HERON DR 1551 HERON DR HANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PIM BAKKE PAUL COLEMAN CHARLES J OLSON 1561 HERON DR 1571 HERON DR 1581 HERON DR HANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES NELSON MS. SUSAN J. VAUX MR. CRAIG MELL 1591 HERON DR 8652 VALLEY RIDGE COURT 8670 VALLEY RIDGE COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 11R. KARL DIEHL GREG PROVO DONALD HARMS 1700 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL SOUTH 1762 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL 1783 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY MR. MICHAEL PATTERSON CHANHASSEN DEV. COMPANY CURRENT RESIDENT 1824 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL SO. CURRENT RESIDENT 1785 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL Chanhassen, MN 55317 1801 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 CHANHASSEN DEV. COMPANY CHANHASSEN DEV. COMPANY CHANHASSEN DEV. COMPANY CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 1801 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL 1801 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL 1801 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 MR. KURT J. MOLDENHAUER MR. CARLOS E. MACHADO MR. MARK R. ROESNER 1792 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL N 1834 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL N 1814 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL NORT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN TIME: 01:37 pm 02/14/95 PROPERTY LISTING BY STREET ADDRESS PAGE: 1 Report Criteria: Property: Address is Between "VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL 1700" and "VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL 1900" or Property: Address is Between "HERON DRIVE 1500" and "HERON DRIVE 1700" or Property: Address is Between "AUDUBON ROAD 8200" and "AUDUBON ROAD 8600" PROPERTY ID UTILITY NO. ADDRESS OWNER WATER FLOOD SEWER WET ZONE DIST. Street Address: AUDUBON ROAD 250221000 3901170 8541 AUDUBON ROAD SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT INC No Total # of Properties: AUDUBON ROAD 1 Street Address: BITTERN COURT 254030070 3504040 8450 BITTERN COURT KOBASICK, SCOTT Yes 254030080 3504030 8451 BITTERN COURT CHRISTIANSEN, DAWNE Yes 254030060 3504050 8460 BITTERN COURT LILLESTOL, BROOK Yes 254030090 3504020 8461 BITTERN COURT ROME, BRIAN Yes 254030050 3504060 8470 BITTERN COURT ADLER, MICHAEL G Yes 254030100 3504010 8471 BITTERN COURT BERQUAM, DANA C Yes 254030040 3504070 8480 BITTERN COURT KULLBERG, JEFFREY ALAN Yes 254030110 3504000 8481 BITTERN COURT CHOINIERE, MIKE Yes 254030120 3503980 8491 BITTERN COURT KELLER, DAVID Yes Total # of Properties: BITTERN COURT 9 Street Address: BOULDER ROAD 258130140 1900086 2066 BOULDER ROAD BATTIS, TIM No 258130210 1900068 2079 BOULDER ROAD HANS HAGEN HOMES No 258130130 1900088 2080 BOULDER ROAD HANS HAGEN HOMES No 258130200 1900066 2093 BOULDER ROAD BALM, RICHARD No 258130120 1900090 2094 BOULDER ROAD BISCHOFF, BRIAN No 258130190 1900064 2103 BOULDER ROAD HANS HAGEN HOMES No 258130110 1900092 2108 BOULDER ROAD HANS HAGEN HOMES No 258130180 1900062 2115 BOULDER ROAD HANS HAGEN HOMES No 258130100 1900094 2122 BOULDER ROAD HANS HAGEN HOMES No 258130170 1900060 2127 BOULDER ROAD SNYDER, MICHAEL No 25813009D 1900096 2136 BOULDER ROAD HANS HAGEN HOMES No 258130160 1900058 2139 BOULDER ROAD SCALITI, DOUGLAS L. No 258130080 1900098 2150 BOULDER ROAD HANS HAGEN HOMES No 258130150 1900056 2151 BOULDER ROAD HANS HAGEN HOMES No 258120080 1900102 2174 BOULDER ROAD DEWITT, STEPHEN No 258120170 1900048 2187 BOULDER ROAD DOLAN, TODD M. No 258120030 1900112 2242 BOULDER ROAD BREY, CAORL Yes 258120100 1900034 2267 BOULDER ROAD ROWLAND, RICHARD No 258110120 1900032 2279 BOULDER ROAD NOTERBLOM, TODD No CITY OF CHANHASSEN TIME: 01:39 pm )2/14/95 PROPERTY LISTING BY STREET ADDRESS PAGE: 2 )ROPERTY ID UTILITY NO. ADDRESS OWNER WATER FLOOD SEWER WET ZONE DIST. Total # of Properties: BOULDER ROAD 19 street Address: HERON DRIVE 154030130 3503970 1500 HERON DRIVE HERRING, JOHN Yes 1/54030460 3504210 1501 HERON DRIVE HAGFORS, BRAD Yes 154030450 3504200 1511 HERON DRIVE REIS, BRIAN Yes 154030030 3504080 1520 HERON DRIVE OLSON, KEVIN Yes 154030440 3504190 1521 HERON DRIVE BLACKMUN, GEORGIA Yes 154030020 3504090 1530 HERON DRIVE SUTER, DANIEL Yes ?54030430 3504180 1531 HERON DRIVE JACKSON, JAMES D. Yes 1/54030010 3504110 1540 HERON DRIVE OBERMEYER, KIM Yes 1/54030420 3504170 1541 HERON DRIVE FLOLID, SCOTT Yes 154030410 3504160 1551 HERON DRIVE KAMMERMEIER, JOSEPH Yes 154030400 3504150 1561 HERON DRIVE BAKKE, TIM Yes 154030390 3504140 1571 HERON DRIVE COLEMAN, PAUL Yes 154030380 3504130 1581 HERON DRIVE OLSON, CHARLES J Yes ?54030370 3504120 1591 HERON DRIVE NELSON, JAMES Yes Total # of Properties: HERON DRIVE 14 ;treet Address: VALLEY RIDGE COURT 151270070 1801260 8652 VALLEY RIDGE COURT VAUX, SUSAN J. No ?51270090 1801240 8670 VALLEY RIDGE COURT MELL, CRAIG No Total # of Properties: VALLEY RIDGE COURT 2 ;treet Address: VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL 1/51250020 1800770 1700 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL DIEHL, KARL No /51250110 1800640 1762 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL PROVO, GREG Yes 151260040 1800690 1783 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL HARMS, DONALD Yes '51280170 1800090 1785 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL CHAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY No 1/51280210 1800600 1824 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL PATTERSON, MICHAEL No '51280130 1800130 1827 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL CHANHASSEN DEV. COMPANY No '51280200 1800590 1836 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL CHANHASSEN DEV. COMPANY No '51280180 1800570 1841 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL CHANHASSEN DEV. COMPANY No '51280190 1800580 1848 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL CHANHASSEN DEV. COMPANY No '51290110 1792 N VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL MOLDENHAUER, KURT J. No No No '51290010 1834 N VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL MACHADO, CARLOS E. No No No '51290030 1901160 1814 NORTH VALLEY RIDGE TRAI ROESNER, MARK R. No No No CITY OF CHANHASSEN TIME: 01:42 pm 02/14/95 PROPERTY LISTING BY STREET ADDRESS PAGE: 3 PROPERTY ID UTILITY NO. ADDRESS OWNER WATER FLOOD SEWER WET ZONE DIST. Total # of Properties: VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL 12 Total # of Properties: 57 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 1995 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; John Rask, Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING 20.11 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.11 ACRES INTO 20 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50' STREET AND 20' FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE LUCY ROAD JUST WEST OF WILLOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TED COEY PROPERTY, MASON HOMES, POINT LAKE LUCY. Public Present: Name Address Mark Shunk 1350 Heather Court Randy Travalia 1420 Excelsior Blvd. Gayle Morin 1441 Lake Lucy Road Alan Thometz 6690 Mulberry Circle Bill Coffman 5151 Edina Industrial, Edina Ted R. Coey 1381 Lake Lucy Road Tom Kelly 6714 Mulberry Circle Mike Byrne 5428 Kimberly Road, Minnetonka Ron Roeser 222 Chan View Greg Carter 6600 Charing Bend Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Dave do you have any comments you'd like to make? Hempel: No further comments at this time Mr. Chairman, thank you. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Scott: Okay. Any questions for staff, or comments? Mancino: Mr. Chair, I would just like to ask if after the applicant has presented, if I could then ask staff some questions. Scott: Oh sure. Sure. Farmakes: I have a question. If you're looking for approval of the issue, on the dock issue and access to the lake. Do you envision that as being a condition of the permit or do you envision that as being a part of the covenants...? Al-Jaff: Currently under our ordinances they would be able to have one dock on each parcel. Aanenson: That's predicated on the fact that there's wetland mitigation. If they have to get a wetland alteration permit, as Diane put in the staff report on page 9, where we talk about the docking issues. They're only allowed to take out 400 square feet. Anything beyond that they'd have to go through the wetland alteration permit. We believe that some may be in excess of that, and one way when they go through the wetland alteration permit, where we have the controls to attach conditions, at that point we would say that they should probably have one dock between the property lines. But there are riparian rights that come with bein on the lake that are not our jurisdiction but on the DNR's. The control we would have is g when they come in for the wetland alteration permit. At that point we would maybe impose a condition that says, to lessen the impact of the wetland, you should have common docks. That's where the control would come in. Farmakes: Has your experience been then that the DNR would go with the most restrictive. So if you were more restrictive than the DNR, do you. Aanenson: We can be more restrictive than the DNR, certainly. In the wetland. Farmakes: If the DNR typically will, if there is substantial amount of block between the shoreline and access to the lake, do they usually typically at least a 50 foot dredge to get through the muskeg to the water, to a depth of 4 feet or whatever it takes. I believe they even allow, without a permit, if you hand remove such vegetation and if you could remove a certain amount of square yardage of that, which isn't very practical because if anyone's ever removed that from the lake, it's... Aanenson: Well we only have jurisdiction of what's above the ordinary high water mark. So that would be the wetland portion that we would have. Anything, we couldn't. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Farmakes: Okay but again, getting to the issue on that particular wetland. Being that that lake has a problem already, are we potentially looking at we cannot conform or that is part of the covenants of the builder or that's not a rule in place by the DNR, we could potentially bore through 6. If we have 5 lots there that could have 50 foot channels through each one of them, which would essentially sort of destroy that section of wetland there. Aanenson: Again, that goes back to the DNR's jurisdiction. We cannot impose something on the DNR. The only way we could is when it needs a wetland alteration permit, which they would still on the upland above the ordinary high water mark, at that time we could impose a condition that says now they have to be combined. Farmakes: Alright. If we're looking at the development that took place over by, across from the Arboretum there on Lake Minnewashta or on the northeast side of Minnewashta that we looked at where we had multiple properties adjacent and going up to the lake but we sort of funneled access to the lake to one area. I know that that was a beachlot but is there not any type of precedent for insisting that that be part of the covenant of the development? Aanenson: I don't believe we can do that. Mancino: Require a beachlot. Aanenson: No. Farmakes: Even to save a wetland? Aanenson: No. Farmakes: Because what you're saying is that you can ask them to do that but there's no condition or requirement that they do that from the State or the City. Al-Jaff: You might want to ask the developer to put it in a covenants. However, staff won't, the city would not be able to require them. We can't enforce a covenants. I mean you could ask the developer to do so but the city won't be able to enforce that. Farmakes: Thank you. Mancino: Sharmin, what's there that's already existing? There's a dock there. Has that been DNR approved? Farmakes: It's a couple of 2 x 4's nailed to... 3 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Mancino: But it's a dock that goes way out. Al-Jaff: Yes. I don't believe it required a permit. It's a boardwalk. Farmakes: I think it's posted on top of, yeah boardwalk on top. Mancino: Yeah, but somebody has made a pathway through the wetland to get to that dock. I mean they can walk out through the wetland area and then through the wetland vegetation to get to the dock. So I'm wondering if that needed approval. It's there. It's existing. Al-Jaff: It's grandfathered in. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Randy Travalia: Thank you. I'm Randy Travalia. I'm President of Robert Mason Homes. As Sharmin has indicated, we have been before you about a month ago and there were a number of issues that we worked our way through. Sharmin kind of litinized the list of them. I'll just kind of run through them again very quickly. I'll be happy to answer any questions on what we did as we went through it. We worked closely with Sharmin and with Dave in terms of the grading and the site planning issues and got very good input from them and we're going to utilize quite a few of their comments. We did remove the eyebrow from the easterly side that touched on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. That allowed us to pull the building pads up the side of the hill and allowed us to more sensitively use the grading in that area. We are looking at the 20 foot front setbacks...again. As you look at the property, there's basically a ridge that runs kind of down the center of it so the further from the center of that ridge we go, the further off the grade we go. So that being able to move a little bit closer, it allows us to save the grade in those areas. We moved the NURP pond to Lot 13. That allowed us to minimize a significant amount of grading area and at the same time we reconfigured the utility connections in and out of that NURP pond. The original plan indicated that the access out of the original wetland, which is on Lots 13 through 18, was to outlet along our easterly property border. So you come, the border... To do that we had to go through a 4 to 5 foot high bank and we would be injuring some of the existing vegetation that's there. Dave suggested that we review the way that that grading works through there and review the way the utility connections work. If you look on your grading sheet, you'll see that we've been able to reroute the utility pipe in such a fashion that we stay completely away from that easterly boundary, and in fact actually drain that NURP pond out on the lot lines down between 11 and 12. And again that gives us a chance to do less grading and less tree removal. We reconfigured the lot I guess four different times and came up with a series of grading plans that worked with them and again I'd like to publically now thank the staff for their input. It's been very helpful for us and we appreciate it. The tree loss on our previous 4 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 plan, although close to being in compliance with the ordinance, is now less. We originally were going to lose about 2 3/4 acres of tree canopy. We will now lose about 2 1/4 acre of tree canopy. Effectively below the threshold of the ordinance. We looked at an idea that staff had advanced with the longer private drive. Had some concerns about the number of homes that were serviced by the private drive, and had some concerns for the grade that was set in that private driveway. Going over 10% at some points. The plan that we have now satisfies the ideas of less grading, less tree loss but it does not have the long private drive, which from our vantage point, is a preferable situation to have less...private drive the grades are more comfortable. Effectively what we have is a good compromise or a good balance between staffs suggestion. The idea of saving the trees and saving the grading issues, and yet still not having to have the private drive with the steeper grades in it. Last Wednesday, February the 8th we had a neighborhood meeting. We invited to that meeting all of the people that are on the list that are on the public hearing list. So there was 56 or 65, whatever the names was. We had 12 to 14 people in attendance. Spoke with, covered most of the issues to the plat and ultimately one of the ideas that we had is to plant, transplant some of the existing evergreens on the site to our easterly boundary on Lot 12, and some of the neighbors in the Willow Ridge neighborhood, to our east raised the question of whether or not we could in fact, instead of planting those kind of in a straight line fashion right along our property line, could we stagger them both inside our property line and outside. In other words, on the Willow Ridge side and do it in a more natural kind of configuration instead of just a straight line with evergreen trees. We spoke with staff and both Kate and Sharmin said that it's fine with them but their concern was to make sure that they planted trees in areas where the soil conditions were appropriate so that they would properly thrive. And in speaking with Mark Shunk, one of the Willow Ridge neighbors tonight, our intention is to just kind of coordinate that with them in the spring when we actually do a little more careful analysis of what those soils conditions are so we can know where most effectively plant those trees. I don't want to take any more time. I know you've all seen the plan before but if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Scott: Good, thank you. Questions? Well I just have one about the trees. So basically you'll be pulling them up and in effect storing them or banking them somehow. Randy Travalia: Our intention is to spade them and move them to areas where we're not going to, where we're going to be able to transplant them immediately. We wouldn't, with trees of that size, it's best if you don't toe them in and let them sit. It's better to pick them up, put them in their ultimate destination. Scott: Okay. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Farmakes: When you're marketing these properties, do you anticipate from a reality standpoint, that we're looking at access on each one of these lots to the lake? Will you be marketing them that way? Randy Travalia: Access to the lake in terms of being able to boat on the lake? Farmakes: That's correct. In some cases you have 400 feet of wetland. Randy Travalia: I think the wetland ranges from about 160 feet to about 350 feet. It is our intention to demonstrate that the lake is there. I suspect getting to your ultimate question of dockage. It's not our intention to say that docks are available in any fashion other than through the city ordinance. We're not planning on putting a common dock down. I don't believe this is the kind of area that a common beachlot is appropriate. There's not enough critical mass in the neighborhood to do that. We would not be interested in doing that. Farmakes: Okay. Scott: Any other comments or questions? Good, thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If anybody from the general public wishes to speak at this time, please step up to the microphone and give us your name and your address and let us know what's on your mind. Alan Thometz: Good evening. I'm Alan Thometz and I live in Willow Ridge. My address is 6690 Mulberry Circle. As Randy mentioned, on February 8th there was a meeting between Mason Homes and residents of Willow Ridge and there was a concern about how to screen our lots from the house on Lot 12...and there was an agreement that was reached about the trees, that Randy referred to. All I would like to suggest or ask, is it possible. I understand that there's a development contract being negotiated between the city and the developer and a bond posted to effectively provide enforcement for that development contract. What I'd like to propose is that this agreement that was made between the developer and the residents of Willow Ridge concerning trees along that property line, that that be incorporated in the development contract and a bond provide protection for the Willow Ridge residents on that happening with those trees. Scott: Okay. I think we could also, that could be a condition that we could add to the existing ones that we have here too so, yeah. We can do that. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Alan Thometz: I just had a question, really for my own education. What's proposed here tonight is the preliminary plat. What's the difference between preliminary and final? What changes could occur between what we see tonight and what actually happens? Scott: Well a preliminary plat is basically a, it becomes a really o where the house pads are going to be. Where the streets are. The utl itieslinThe majoring features such as what the property's going to look like after it's been graded. The plans that we get involve showing how the lots are going to be situated and their size and their configuration. Where the street's going. It's width and then there's also a tree sheet. I call it a tree sheet, that just shows the position of the canopy, the size and the trunk diameter and the type of the trees. So then we can envision what is going to be lost due to housing pads and so forth. From preliminary plat to final plat, there usually isn't very much variation but I know the planning staff has seen a lot more of these things than I have. What kinds of variations do you see from a preliminary to final plat? Aanenson: I'm just going to explain the process first. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the preliminary plat. Then it goes to City Council. Public hearing is held here. The City Council also reviews the preliminary plat and they either add to the conditions or embrace them the way they are. Then when it goes for final plat, at that point basically a lot of it is just details that the engineering department will review street plans... storm water calculations and all that sort of stuff to make sure that the ponds are sized correctly and the street plans are approved. Specific design work. When that's all done and it meets the satisfaction of the city standards, the Council, on a consent, approves the final plat. These condition in the development contract would be approved. If you're interested in making sure conditions are as you want in there, you can get a copy contract when it's on. Normally it's on consent but if you are interested, developmenthe you can get a copy of that when it's on. They are published in the paper when they'll be on for final plat and you can review that and if you have issues with that, then you can let the Council know. Alan Thometz: Yeah. I'm sort of new to the process. I was wondering how much material change would take place between the preliminary and the final. Aanenson: Sometimes in the grading there might be a little bit of tweaking as you actually design the street profile or something but it's pretty minor of a change. Alan Thometz: So substantially what we're seeing here tonight in terms of plans... Aanenson: Correct. Anything beyond a minor change we would have to bring back through the process. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Scott: And then if you happen to see, let's say something when you get a copy of the development agreement prior to the City Council meeting. If you happen to see something on there that you see as an issue, what the consent agenda is, and you may know this already but I'll just for the record. A number of items that have been discussed and really are approved as a block but my guess is, if you had a particular issue, you could contact the city and let them know that you'd like to have that taken out of the consent agenda. Or if you happen to know someone on the City Council, just call them directly and they'd be willing to at least go another round. They like to get it through if they can, but if there's a glaring omission or something, you need to call it to their attention. Does that kind of help you out? Alan Thometz: That's all... Scott: Great. Well thank you. Anybody else like to speak? Hempel: Mr. Chairman? Scott: Yes. Hempel: If I could just address what the resident brought up about transplanting trees and putting a condition in the development contract. I guess I'd like to address that question maybe to the developer as well because the development contract is more for public improvements and conditions of approval within the plat. Now we're talking a technicality outside the plat. Do we guarantee these trees for a year? Those kinds of items so maybe if the developer could address that if he'd be comfortable in leaving that in. Aanenson: I guess that's the way we'd look at it. If it's mutually acceptable between the parties, then we'd put it in. As Dave indicated, that's something outside of the plat. I think we did talk to the developer about that. When it's outside the plat it's a little bit harder to enforce sometimes. Scott: Okay. Yes sir. Joe Cook: My name's Joe Cook and I'm on 1340 Heather Court. I guess I just, I got here just a little bit late and I was given this drawing showing Lot 12 and then the trees and stuff that you'll be planting there. I guess that looks good on paper but I'm a little concerned, I'd like to have something a little more concrete and definite in terms of being, is this, we've got 9 trees. Tree locations here. To me that's a little bit vague in terms of I would assume this number...corresponded with certain trees. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Randy Travalia: What they are Joe, the Planning Commission hasn't seen that. I just gave that to Mark a few minutes ago. That's a proposed discussion between your neighborhood and us. It would be our intention to first off, investigate the soil conditions to make sure that the trees are going to viable in those locations. And we can't do that until spring until we can really get into the soil. The second thing is, we intend to transplant trees within the neighborhood. The trees that are numbered there on our key to the ones on the original plan. So it shows what they are exactly but they're all spruce or pine trees. They range anywhere in diameter from 4 to 8 inches. That piece of paper alone without the master... Joe Cook: Yeah. Well, and I guess that helps a bit but I guess, again I just want to get, I don't know how you generally deal with this situation but just to make sure there's something documented that says there will be a certain number of trees. Minimum number of trees... I was concerned too about, is there like a guarantee of those trees. If they die in 6 months, is there typically the responsibility of the builder to come back and replace those trees? And I'd like to see something like that...possible. Scott: I think what we could do, from a condition at least to maybe add a condition to that effect when we send it on. At least that will be an item that will be up for discussion with the City Council. But as far as liability for replacement and so forth, if the trees are, and I'm not going to get into a big discussion of it but I'm thinking if the trees are on either side of the property line between the two developments, I think that might be a factor as well but that's something that I would think you guys could work out. It seems like the developer has been quite willing to work on some things. I would suggest working it that way but we can add a condition that just brings up the fact that the details of where the trees are going to go relative to screening the two developments is something that's going to be worked out between the developer and the residents and then that we'd like to have something more specific perhaps when it goes to City Council. Something like that. Okay. Would anyone else wish to speak? Okay, could I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: I had a question for Sharmin on page 3 of the staff report. Right toward the bottom you talk about the zoning ordinance states that the side yard setback for lots served by private driveways or flag lots 20 feet, okay. That wasn't my specific question. I'm sorry. I was trying to get at the point where we talked about the width of the lot at the 35 foot setback. I think you had mentioned that there's a variance that we're requesting or they're requesting as it relates to the 20 foot setback for the width of the lot at the 20 foot setback. I 9 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 think you were looking at like on Lots like 2, 3, 4, 5. Those lots where we pulled the house pad, or the setback closer to the road. Now I know we're looking at a variance because of that condition. But if we have the standard setback at 35 feet, would those lots meet the 90 foot requirement? Al-Jaff: Our recommendation is that they meet that 90 foot width because we believe that this is, the 90 foot allows for a reasonable house pad. If you go less than that, then it...future variances and we want to avoid that from happening. Ledvina: So in your conditions you're stating that they should adjust the lot lines to meet that requirement? Al-Jaff: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. Al-Jaff: We're recommending approval on front yard setback variances so that some of the homes would have a 20 foot front yard setback but as far as the width of the parcel, we're recommending that they adjust the site property line so that they meet the 90 foot setback. Ledvina: Okay. Can you point out which condition that was? I didn't find it. Al-Jaff: 25. Ledvina: Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. Here it is, the last one. I stopped at 24. Okay, thank you. Sorry. Bear with me on that one. I guess I had a question on the situation with Lot 12 and I went out to the site and I took a look at that lot and the vegetation and I guess it seemed to me that the houses that were closest to that Lot 12 house pad would be quite screened. You know it seemed pretty good and I think with the developer bringing in those additional trees, I guess I'm fairly well convinced that the screening can be adequately achieved. The one thing that I am concerned about relates to the wetland, and I know the developer is proposing to mitigate the filling of that small wetland but I think there might be a point, a philosophical point as it relates to wetlands and how we treat wetlands. I know in many other plats we do allow developers to fill with mitigation when we're looking at putting in roads, and that type of thing and in some critical type areas as it relates to the infrastructure of the plat. But in this case, what we're doing is we're allowing a developer to fill this wetland to add another lot to the plat, and I think that's an issue. It's a small wetland but I think the wetland has significance in the overall drainage of the larger wetland to the north and also how it fits into the overall drainage pattern for Lake Lucy. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Aanenson: Can we respond to that Matt? Ledvina: Sure. Aanenson: I can give you some clarification on that. Al-Jaff: The applicant could access the site if he moves the NURP pond further to the north, and basically brought the driveway around to access Lot 12. We just believe that it will provide for a better buildable site if that wetland was filled. Also, we believe that by mitigating in this area, the quality of the wetland will be improved from what it is at right now. Ledvina: Okay, the mitigation area. You're thinking there's a real substantial impact that you could make there. Mancino: Could you say that one more time? You would move the NURP pond to the north. Al-Jaff: You could potentially get a driveway through to access. Ledvina: Around the east side essentially of that wetland? Al-Jaff: Correct. What would happen is potentially get a cross access easement over Lot 13. It would be clunky but doable. Ledvina: Right. Mancino: Then where would you put the NURP pond? Ledvina: It would have to get narrowed or you might wipe out some trees. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could give some insight here. Part of the grading plan to develop Lot 12, they will need to fill the wetland at approximately...it would be very difficult to avoid impacting that wetland. The only way to avoid it would be not to build on that lot essentially. Ledvina: Okay. So that's an issue that it's just a basic thing about some criteria about when you fill in a wetland and when don't you fill in a wetland. I know there's probably been some other instances where we have allowed a lot. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Aanenson: We've done it in a lot of instances where you have fingers or just strange anomalies where it just doesn't lay right into the subdivision. Again, this isn't any different than the Willow Ridge where we did a number of subdivisions that were allowed to be filled. I guess we felt, based on the quality of this wetland, we felt it could be enhanced. After physically walking it and going on Diane's recommendation, tying it back into our storm water management plan and our wetlands, we felt that instead of leaving this isolated one, it could probably better enhance by moving it and that's just I guess the perspective we took. Ledvina: Right. I can see those opinions and I guess I would certainly defer to Diane in this instance. I think I don't know that we do have a criteria though for evaluating when we would allow a wetland to be filled or when we wouldn't. Aanenson: Well we do in a sense and that's based on our classification. Our ag urban. With some we do and don't and those that have already been degregated or are of less quality and then we make that and then tie it back into the storm water management plan. Those that we want to improve the quality of, or use for the function of, treatment of storm water. That's kind of, and again we tied that back into that criteria and based on that, we felt this was one that we could enhance the quality of the wetland adjacent to the lake. Ledvina: Okay. That seems like a reasonable approach. I had a couple of questions. Some of them were answered by the developer as it relates to the trees and I think that's a good proposal to stagger the trees or whatever's the appropriate thing to do there. To improve the look. I think that's real helpful. I had a condition, or a question on condition number 10. We stated here that no berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way and I think I asked this question the last time. Does that mean that the landscape island in the cul- de-sac is not allowed, or at the entrance way? Hempel: Yeah, that's a good point. We refer this condition to the right-of-way along Lake Lucy Road... We are comfortable with the amount of landscaping around the median and center island as long as it's maintained by the homeowners association. Ledvina: Okay. So how can we change that to make that a little more specific? Aanenson: Just say on Lake Lucy Road. Ledvina: Well but then we have this, the Lake Lucy right-of-way includes that initial entrance monument, right? Hempel: That's actually just outside of the right-of-way. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Ledvina: It is? Okay. We just say the Lake Lucy Road right-of-way, right? Aanenson: Yep. Ledvina: Okay. Talking about the right-of-way and the landscaping. Now you're recommending that the developer put together a plan for that landscaping and what progress has been made on that? Al-Jaff: There should have been a landscaping plan. Ledvina: Yes. I think there was but, I believe there is in our packet here. Is this? Al-Jaff: That looks like it, yes. Ledvina: Okay. I don't know that it has specific landscaping for Lake Lucy Road. Am I missing it? Al-Jaff: I need to look at it. I'm sorry. Ledvina: We're talking about this area here. Al-Jaff: There is additional vegetation in the area. The applicant will have to revise the plan to... Ledvina: Okay. Are you requesting specific landscaping there or do you want him to propose additional work in that area? Al-Jaff: There is existing vegetation at this point. Ledvina: Are you saying that's adequate? Al-Jaff: It's substantial vegetation. Ledvina: Okay. Does condition number 20 meet our requirements there? I mean does that get across what we really want to do? It says the applicant shall work with the city to develop a plan. Are you saying that our plan, that the plan that's developed is adequate? Al-Jaff: Yes it is, especially after he revises it to include existing vegetation. Not all existing vegetation has been shown on this plan. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Ledvina: Okay. And then I had a question about the conservation easement. Sometimes we have, at this point we have a description of where we're going to do that. Do we have an idea? Can you work. Al-Jaff: We can work with the applicant. Ledvina: Okay. I guess the one area that I'd like to see, and it relates to Lot 12 are the, and I guess also Lot 13 on the east side of the pond. I want to try to make sure that those large evergreens are protected. And I think that's significant toward the screening that will occur in that area. So I would like to see those items included in the, or those trees in that area included in the conservation easement. I imagine that you assume that. Al-Jaff: We would take it on the Lake Lucy Point portion of the site but we won't be able to get it on the Willow Ridge. Ledvina: Right. I understand that. But that's, the conservation easement is a work item essentially to resolve. Al-Jaff: Correct. Ledvina: And I had a suggestion for item 13. We talk about the wells and septic systems being, that they will have to be properly abandoned. I would like to suggest that we specify that a little more. A little more detailed and identify that they should be abandoned according to the Department of Health Water Well Code. You can abandon them properly but there's ways of... Mancino: According to health? Ledvina: Department of Health Water Well Code. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: The staff and the applicant responded to my concerns from the last meeting. I agree with, I thought some of the Matt's questions regarding the filling of the wetland were real appropriate. I have two, the only two comments that I have are not really within the, one comment is not within our jurisdiction but I know the DNR does react to public comments. So when this issue does go to the DNR for access to the lake, I would like the staff to draft a fairly strong letter, short letter, requesting that shared docks be highly recommended by the Planning Commission and hopefully the City Council. My second point relates to what Matt brought up and that's, I would like Diane to, when this goes to the City Council, to justify the 14 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 filling of the wetland on Lot 12 and document the mitigation benefits for their understanding and then maybe mine. I think it's appropriate but I'd like to see the trade off s. Matt, I appreciate your comments and that's all. Scott: Good, thanks. Harberts: I noted in the staff report that staff was convinced to retain the monument. Can you share some insight in terms of what convinced you to leave it in. Hempel: On what... Harberts: In the staff report I think it was under streets. It said that at the entrance to the development, wait a minute. Okay. An 80 foot wide right-of-way is proposed to accommodate a center median which staff has been convinced to retain and I'm understanding that that includes that monument? Aanenson: The gateway? Harberts: Yeah. The gateway or whatever. Hempel: What we are allowing is the center median. Monument, I'm not sure if there's a monument or landscaping. Harberts: Or landscaping, or whatever. Hempel: My initial response was, we're trying to save the grading of the site. They had this wide right-of-way. Wide street entrance. They're putting the house further down the hill creating more grading. With this new alignment, reshape the road a little bit. It didn't make a difference whether the island was there or not. Harberts: So what about from a city perspective in terms of public safety or public maintenance? Are you doing traffic control? Is it an issue? Hempel: We don't believe it will be an issue from the site distance perspective. Harberts: Would it make a difference in terms of the vegetation. The type of vegetation that's there and I'm just reflecting back on some of the challenges that they had on West 78th Street. This site, and depending on what kind of planning for this. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Hempel: Sure. This is a relatively small median area. There would be small plants... We've allowed similar types of median plantings...Meadows at Longacres out on TH 41. That's pretty substantial... It really has not impeded vision...for the neighborhood coming out onto TH 41. We don't believe it will be a problem. As far as maintenance goes of it, we can put in the development contract that if these islands are not maintained by the homeowners association, the city reserves the right to remove at any time. Harberts: And who pays? Hempel: It would be at city expense or we could bill back to the homeowners association. Harberts: With regards to the waiver in terms of the 50 foot wide street...would it have been a challenge, a great challenge Dave in other areas where this type of street or size of street has been allowed. Are you aware of any issues or challenges that the city may have had one way or the other? Have you had comments from residents? Hempel: Sure. We've allowed similar right-of-way in certain instances such as this where we're trying to preserve trees...topography of the site is comparable... We've done this in the Lundgren development...Song parcel it was, which hasn't been constructed yet but will be... We've got previous subdivisions...The previous ordinance was 50 feet actually. We've increased it to 60... There are a number of neighborhoods... Harberts: With little concern, or repercussions to the city or to the residents? I mean the city for some reason, which I'm not aware of, went from 50 to 60 for some reason. I don't know if it's utilities or what. Hempel: It's a combination of utilities and snow storage. Future sidewalks...More green space. Harberts: It's my understanding, from Matt's questions that the lots will have to meet the, would it be the width? What is it called? Al-Jaff: Correct. The width of the lot has to be 90 feet at the setback. Harberts: And all of the lots would have to reflect that? Al-Jaff: Correct. Harberts: Isn't that going to cause a shift... 16 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Al-Jaff: We believe that the change is going to be minor. You have in excess of 160 feet on this lot. So it's truly a minor change and each lot needs approximately 4 or 5 feet. It's a very minor change that it could be accommodated before final plat approval. Harberts: I guess overall, you know I certainly recognize the effort by the developer and staff. I guess I've always been uncomfortable with setbacks that are less than 30 feet and I certainly recognize what we're trying to accomplish, or trying to preserve. And I also recognize in this report that a person or whatever has the right and the opportunity to develop the land in the way that we want but I guess I'm uncomfortable with reflecting the 30 foot... That's it. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: Most of the items have been talked about. Just a general sense...elevation situation. I don't have a problem with 12. I certainly support Ladd's comments in regards to the areas that we don't have jurisdiction. Lake Lucy's not a well lake. The 5 sites that are there, I believe the applicant mentioned is between 100 and 350 feet of the wetland to the water line. If given a 50 foot channel, and we're talking those distances, if you add those together, I believe it probably comes up to the second largest wetland, square footage in the development. And that would not be replaced. That potentially, conceivably could be removed, although I think it's improbable because of the cost. If under those circumstances they were removed, it would not be replaced, which is different than the wetland situations that are farther up on the property. It seems to be maybe a bit of a loophole with problematic lakes that have large pieces of wetlands to the water line on these long narrow lots. Might substantially devastate that particular area of the wetland, although...below the high water mark is not our jurisdiction. It still kind of defeats the purpose of some of the other things that we're talking about here. And if a letter helps, I certainly support that as a solution. I have nothing further. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: Well that just makes us need to look to the west of this development too because is that all the way down to the lake? To the west of this property. Do we have the same wetlands? Farmakes: No...potentially one other and then a little peninsula comes out there. They call it an island. And the other homes are already there. I don't think, one took the city to task on the issue and I think decided in the end not to build that. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Mancino: I have a couple of questions Sharmin. On the recommendation, number 25. You have Lots 3, 4 and 5 and earlier in our report on page 2 and on page 3 you have included two other lots. Number 2 and number 9 and I think 9 was eliminated because it's on a cul-de-sac and therefore would have different requirements. And why was 2 eliminated? Al-Jaff: Because it actually does meet the requirement and it was, I took it out on the conditions but I didn't within the body of the report. So the conditions of approval are accurate. Mancino: Correct. Tell me what your thinking was, I have some concern as Diane does, about the 20 foot yard setbacks. You did not in the recommendations pull those out, exactly which lots. Is that for a reason that you did not want to be specific about which lots would have a variance? Al-Jaff: I quoted the standards. The compliance with ordinance as what will be followed as far as setbacks. If you would rather we call out those lots specifically, we could do that. Mancino: Okay, I think that would be a good idea. Could you tell me why Lot 19 would require that 20 foot variance. As I look at it, on Block 1. I want to say, can't you skew the house pad and not that have be a 20 foot variance on Lot 19? And maybe that's a question I should ask the applicant. I don't understand the reason for it there. Al-Jaff: All of them are basically to minimize grading, minimize impact on vegetation and maximize the distance from the edge of the wetland. Mancino: And so you feel that that one is quite a ways away from the wetland needs to be located to have a variance there too? Hempel: ...house pad, I think we could get that to fit the 30 foot setback and not require a variance. Ledvina: For Lot 19? Mancino: Lot 19. So it looks like there's working room to do that and I would like to see that one stay with those standards of 30 feet. If we can do that. If the applicant work with staff to do that. Another kind of big question I have as I look at this property, which is absolutely gorgeous. I walked it. It's wonderful. It will make a beautiful development. My concern is, as we develop the property, the Morin property to the west and as we go down Lake Lucy Road and I see that there is another property up for sale. For sale sign. My concern has to do with public safety. Lake Lucy Road right now is a very wide road which 18 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 has it's trail as part of the street. It encourages, I use it all the time. I live very close to it. At one end of it, and it encourages speeding. I am concerned about kids with bikes on the trail that is part of the street. I'm concerned with runners with pedestrians, etc. and we are going to have all these developments that are going to end in cul-de-sacs on the south side of Lake Lucy Road. Is there not a way that we can look at this so that the neighborhoods hook up to each other and so that there are streets on that south side that don't have to use Lake Lucy Road so that pedestrians, kids can go from east to west. Hempel: We've sat and looked at the site for intersecting the parcels with streets...The topographic variation...that could be very difficult. Although on the other hand, maybe a trail that meanders through the woods closer to the lake...that hasn't been thoroughly explored. Maybe that would be a possibility. You would have a couple of home sites though...Park and Rec. Aanenson: They looked at that. I think their position is there was a trail on the other side of the street. Todd's comment also too is access between the two subdivisions, we're kind of back to the old neighborly thing where you kind of, there's an existing path where people get around the wetland now. It's the old you cut through your neighbor's yard sort of thing. If the children are playing with each other between the two subdivisions. But their position on this was that the existing trail is on Lake Lucy Road and didn't foresee another one on the south side here. Scott: You're right. I mean the topography is very extreme. I think when you get next door, there's that property that's for sale that I think is the one that's next door to the Morin parcel. It's a 2 story structure and the roof line, the top, the peak of the roof of that house is below grade for Lake Lucy so I mean it's pretty scary. Mancino: Well it's very steep but I'm saying, is there going to be houses there? Are we going to say yes, you can put houses on the property but you can't put a street. I mean if we're going to grade, do mass grading for a housing development. Aanenson: I guess we're saying the east/west connector is a difficult one to make. If you look at the wetlands in the area, by the time you do the avoidance of the wetlands and the grading. Our first choice is always to try to link of neighborhoods if you can, and we did, as Dave indicated, we did look at this because we believe this whole superblock is going to develop at some time and that would be our first choice. It really is. And we looked at that and we just didn't feel like, to make the east/west connectors, with all the natural features there, the impact would be too great. And the depth of these developments are such that it works just to take a perpendicular street down into the subdivision to subdivide. It would be nice if we could have an east/west connector though. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Mancino: That could even be a small... That's the extent of my questions. Just something for staff to check. When I walked it, and the wetland delineation markers were up, it seemed to me that they were in the middle of some of the wetland area and that was only through my looking at vegetation. I have no idea but there were some, I want to say Peterson markers up with tags. Al-Jaff: There were two sets of wetland markers. One of them is, was done previously by a different delineator but there is an accurate set and Diane actually went out there with the surveyor and they agreed on all the locations. Mancino: Okay. My last comment is that I think it is very generous and very gracious of the applicant to work with the neighbors in transplanting trees. I don't think it's something that I would put in the recommendation because there is no ordinance. There is no precedence that between single family developments that a developer must put in trees or in a buffer. I would hope that his or her word is good enough and I think that there have been several meetings on this and I'm, as I said, I think it is most gracious of the developer to do this. Usually the homeowners on the other side, if they do want a buffer, they are the ones that put in the buffer. Scott: Good, thank you. Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I have one more comment. You started talking about the trails and I know at our last meeting I remember that there were some suggestions from the neighboring resident of a possible trail connection to Mulberry Circle. Was that investigated? Al-Jaff: Yes it was. The location of the wetland would not allow that trail to go through. What would potentially happen is the trail would go very close to Lake Lucy Road and the Park Director felt that it's not warranted when it's so close to Lake Lucy Road and you would have an existing trail out there. Ledvina: Okay. Scott: Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Rezoning of 18.5 acres of property currently zoned Rural Residential to Residential Single Family. Preliminary Plat subdividing 18.15 acres into 20 single family lots and the one outlot and a variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback and a 50 foot wide right-of-way and a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and mitigate and ag urban wetland (WAP #95-1), subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following modifications. Modifying condition number 20 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 10 to state that no berming or landscaping will be allowed within the Lake Lucy Road right- of-way. Modifying condition number 13 to read, existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned according to the Minnesota Department of Health Water Well Code. Modifying condition number 20 to read, the applicant shall develop a landscaping reforestation plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road right-of-way acceptable to the city staff. And the rest of the conditions reading as is stated in the report. Adding condition number 26. Screening for the east side of Lot 12 shall be coordinated with the affected residents of the Willow Ridge subdivision. Just a little bit of a technical problem here. Condition number 23, it's labeled twice actually so relabel conditions, the second condition number 23, full park and trail fees to 24. Number 24 to 25. Number 25 to number 26 and condition number 27 to read, screening for the east side of Lot 12 shall be coordinated with the affected residents of Willow Ridge subdivision to insure a natural appearance. And adding condition number 28. A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be allowed for Lots 4, 5, 13, 17 and 18. Scott: Can I have a second please? Harberts: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the staffs recommendation with the conditions as modified. Is there any discussion? Conrad: Yeah. Was there concurrence on the letter from staff to the DNR? Was there concurrence that the staff justify the wetland alteration filling to the City Council? I don't need that in the motion. I do need it, I'm just curious whether the Planning Commission has cared about that and staff can carry that out without. Aanenson: It's in the report but we can expand upon that. Ledvina: Yeah, I think that's appropriate. Just for a point of clarification. I didn't identify the specific cases and we have case number, Subdivision Case #94-13. The rezoning, Case #94-6 and the Wetland Alteration, Case #95-1. Mancino: I have one other discussion item that I forgot to bring up, and that is something I wanted to ask Sharmin. On the west side of the road, the cul-de-sac that goes in, I noticed that there is a lot of vegetation in that area. Small saplings, which is our next generation of trees. Will that be custom graded? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Al-Jaff: That is our recommendation. That they do custom grade that portion of the site. We're also going to preserve a large number of the trees that are out there, basically because the applicant has moved some of the utility lines. Mancino: That were proposed to. Al-Jaff: On the original plans some of the utility lines were going to go through those trees and all that will be preserved. Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Is there any more discussion? Ledvina moved, Harberis seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Rezoning of 18.5 acres of property currently zoned Rural Residential to Residential Single Family, (#94-6 REZ), Preliminary Plat subdividing 18.15 acres into 20 single family lots and the one oudot and a variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback and a 50 foot wide right- of-way (#94-13 SUB), and a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and mitigate and ag urban wetland (WAP #95-1), subject to the conditions: 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 $20.00 per sign. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 5. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events 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 will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers, Section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. Impacts resulting from sanitary sewer installation shall be provided to staff as an amendment to the replacement plan application. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. 11. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level. 12. 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 23 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 purposes. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. 13. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned according to the Minnesota Department of Health Water Well Code. 14. The proposed single family residential development of 12.11 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $23,978. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 15. 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. 16. All lots shall take direct access to the interior system and not Lake Lucy Road. 17. The traffic lanes adjacent to the entrance median shall be 18 feet wide. 18. A catch basin shall be installed on the west radius of the proposed street at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road to maintain the drainage pattern and help prevent an icy intersection. 19. The easterly half of Lot 12 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. 20. The applicant shall develop a landscaping reforestation plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road right-of-way acceptable to the city staff. 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. 21. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easements prior to grading. 22. Building Department conditions: a. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 b. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. c. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. d. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 23. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Add an additional fire hydrant between Lots 6 and 7 and one at the end of the private driveway or have the homes constructed with built-in, automatic residential fire sprinkling systems. The hydrant between Lots 4 and 5 shall be relocated between Lots 3 and 4. 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 safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. c. Submit street name for approval. d. Due to the close proximity of surrounding residential neighborhoods, any trees, shrubs, bushes, natural vegetation will either have to be chipped, shredded or removed from the site. No burning permits will be issued. e. A turn around for personal vehicles is recommended at a minimum at the end of the private driveway. 24. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 25. The private street shall be designed and constructed by the applicant in accordance to the City's private street ordinance to serve the four lots in the southeast corner of the site. This private street shall serve a maximum of 4 single family homes. 26. The applicant shall adjust the frontage on Lots 3, 4 and 5 to meet the Zoning Ordinance frontage requirements of 90 feet. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 27. Screening for the east side of Lot 12 shall be coordinated with the affected residents of the Willow Ridge subdivision. 28. Screening for the east side of Lot 12 shall be coordinated with the affected residents of Willow Ridge subdivision to insure a natural appearance. 29. A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be allowed for Lots 4, 5, 13, 17 and 18. All voted in favor, except Farmakes who abstained, and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: KKCM RADIO FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 12' X 20' TRANSMITTER BUILDING. THE NEW BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED 5' FROM THE NORTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINES. THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A 50' FRONT YARD AND 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 1451 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE AND ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Scott: How far is this from the residence? That first residence. Rask: The first one to the west? Scott: Yes. Rask: I would say well over 500 feet. It's quite, I drove down that access road and it's quite a ways. It's hardly visible from that residence. Scott: Yeah, okay. Questions or comments. Conrad: We don't have, what are the standards that guide the materials for a project like this? Rask: The only ones I am aware of I guess at this point would be the ones by the FCC as far as regulations of the transmitter tower and equipment use. Scott: But in A2 it's pretty open. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Aanenson: Well it did require a conditional use and I guess we felt this was consistent with that. And ultimately our first question was, they are outside of the MUSA_ Is this going to become another use? Is there a higher and better use of the property? And in looking at it, John and I determined there really isn't much buildable area. This may be the highest and best use of this piece of property. I guess we felt comfortable based on the...building that it probably is the only use that may be out there. Conrad: When I see cedar plywood siding, you know that's really where I'm going. Then I'll state my question. What standards do we have that regulate that? Do we have any? Do we have any role in that? Rask: It certainly would be covered in the site plan review and generally, I think the way our site plan standards read are more for commercial properties and commercial areas. However, this is a natural area for the most part so I guess what staff was most concerned with is that the building didn't stick out. That there was some intent to use more earth tone colors to get it to blend and not stick out. The existing building there now is just a plywood building so I guess we're hoping to get something that's above that but that would blend in and preserve the natural vegetation. I guess not stick out. Conrad: So we don't have standards? Rask: Well I think our standards say that it's compatible with the surround area. And again, that would primarily apply to commercial areas. That's the way our standards are written for site plan or industrial parks or that sort of thing but the surrounding area here is a natural environment so I guess we're trying to have as little impact on it as possible. Conrad: That's all. Scott: Okay. Any other comments? Mancino: Well I would just like to say that I think that we should put that in the recommendations. That if this is a natural area, that we should have earth tones and that the, that you don't have an aluminum roof or whatever. That it be the shakes and the wood tones that would kind of blend in with the wetland. Conrad: Thatched roof would be kind of nice. Scott: Are there any other comments? Jeff, can you save us from this? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Farmakes: No. I have nothing further...at this point. They were going to modify...strange that we don't have standards for that... Scott: Well that's what I was thinking. Because usually what happens, if someone takes property that's A2, and they're going to use it for commercial use, it gets rezoned. And then our existing standards cover it but when we have a non-conforming use in an A2 district without a rezoning, it doesn't really give us. Farmakes: ...wetland_ Conceivably how many of those are we going to come up with and... Scott: Well, that's what I was going to say. Farmakes: So those are the extent of my comments... Scott: I think what I'm going to do is ask the applicant if they'd like to make a presentation. John Hull: My name is John Hull. I'm the General Manager at KKCM. The gentleman here is Ray Foslid, the former Mayor of Shakopee and Scott County Commissioner who is with our new ownership...Broadcasting. I do have some photographs Mr. Foslid took of the area that I can pass around. Scott: Sure. John Hull: I think that they pretty well show the existing building and with the site plans that we provided you, you can pretty well see the area that we would like to put up our new transmitter building on it. The reason we requested...was that it's about the only area within that parcel at least that is out of the wetlands. In more recent years the current building has had trouble with standing water and many times when we went out there to maintain our transmitter, we'll walk in and there will be trickles of water going through and it's in fact almost a dangerous situation for us at times. This new transmitter building, with our state of the art transmitter that our company has purchased, would insure that we would be able to be on the highest ground possible and at the same time...accessible for us to maintain our transmitter. The pictures I think show that it's also, the reason we wanted it 5 feet from the north boundary line was such that as you can see on one of those photographs, you can see a...area that gives us access into that. It would allow us to be able to put the new building right off of that gravel road. We would not be disturbing any of the natural vegetation. We would not be out on the wetland at all. Staff has recommended in their report that it be back an additional 15 feet I believe. Well if that's the case, we would have to knock out some of those small trees and shrubs that are on the property. And so that's why we were, and... engineering recommended to us that we put it in that corner of the lease. In that photograph 28 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 you can see a large stake. That gives you the northwest corner of our lot. And so it would be just right inside of that staked area. I really don't know what all you need to know...I don't know how else to present this, except that like I say, we have spent a considerable sum of money in buying a new, state of the art transmitter and the old building has been there 28 years? 28 years and it's just time to upgrade our facility that we store our transmitter in. And so that's the purpose for us being here tonight. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you. Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I had a question. One of the conditions relates to the existing transmitter building to be removed from the property. What would you consider a reasonable time from the completion of the new building? How much time would you like to have before the old building gets taken out of there? John Hull: 30 to 60 days. We do have a buyer for our old transmitter that's currently in that building. Plus there's also a secondary transmitter, back-up transmitter that we would be needing to move out of the old building into the new building. There's also, we hope to make the switch from old transmitter to new transmitter in literally 12 hours. Sign off the air at 6:00 p.m. one evening and come on the air at 6:00 a.m. the next morning with our new transmitter. However, realistically we have to give this fellow time to come in and take our old transmitter out. Then we would go in and take out the back-up, the secondary transmitter. Move that into the new building and thus we feel realistically in 30 to 60 days after we go on the air with our new transmitter, we'll be... Scott: Okay. So 60 days would work? John Hull: Yeah, that would be a maximum. I'm sure that would work. Scott: Okay, good. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Thank you. This is a public hearing. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Halberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Is there anyone from the general public who wishes to speak on behalf of this issue? Let the record show that there are no members of the general public who wish to speak. So may I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public healing was closed. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: I have no comments on this. You may want to look at that problem. If you envision it coming up in the future. I'm not sure... Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: My only comment is just a little nit and that would be, John. Are there going to be outside utility boxes, etc, on this building? Rask: There will be power to it. I'm not sure of the location of that. Maybe the applicant. Mancino: Will there be outside utility boxes on this building? John Hull: As far as I know, no. U.S. West will put a phone box. We use a direct telephone link from our studios to this site and they will need to move that box. Right now it's on the north side of our current building. It could...put over. And outside of the usual meters that are run into our building, you know that whole side of the building. Everything else will be inside. Mancino: Alright. And my suggestion would just be that if they are going to be outside, that they be on the, not the street side but on the other side. As long as you can place them either or, let's choose the one that's not on the street side. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: This is a small item. I would like to see a condition number 5 kind of restated it and I would like to say the only signage allowed would be the caution signs required by FCC regulations. There could be other types of signs so, if we can state it that way. And other than that, I would support the staff in terms of the... Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Nothing. Scott: Diane. Harberts: Nothing. Scott: I don't have any comments. Could I have a motion please? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #95- 1, subject to the staff conditions with the following changes. Condition number 4 to read, the existing transmitter building shall be removed from the property within 60 days of completion of the new transmitter building. And number 5 change to read, the only signage allowed would be the caution signs required by FCC regulations. Scott: Can I have a second? Conrad: Second. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #95-1, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain all required permit or approvals from the FCC and the Army Corps of Engineers. 2. A wetland exemption form shall be obtained from the city. 3. Plans submitted for the building permit should include an engineered foundation or slab. 4. The existing transmitter building shall be removed from the property within 60 days of completion of the new transmitter building. 5. The only signage allowed on the property will be the caution signs required by FCC Regulations. and recommend approval of a five (5) foot side yard and a thirty-five (35) foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a 12 x 20 foot shed at fifteen feet from the north property line and five (5) feet from the west property line based on the following findings: 1. The wetland on the property prevents the placement of the shed at 50 feet or more from the front lot line and 10 feet or more from the side lot line. 2. The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 3. This petition for a variance is based upon a desire to have a reasonable use of the property while minimizing the impacts on the wetland. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND RECREATION/PARK COMPLEX LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, BLUFF CREEK ADDITION, CHASKA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Scott: This is basically a technical matter, especially since the building is about 3/4 completed but staff report. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions for staff? Ledvina: I have just one question. Why does the city need, why would the city need an easement on their own property? Aanenson: For the road? Hempel: For utilities. Ledvina: Even if there was a wetland there though, would they. Hempel: You've got other areas draining into it. We're looking at some of the area in Outlot B, I believe it is, as part of that regional storm water pond. Take runoff from the school site and... Aanenson: The development to the east, yeah. Ledvina: Okay. Scott: Good. Any other? Mancino: When was the road named McGlynn Drive? Aanenson: Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your perspective, that segment was named McGlynn Drive adjacent to Audubon Road so the die was sort of cast and this ties into that street. So since that segment had already been named, the continuity just carried through. Mancino: Can't the city rename it? 32 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Scott: That's a public safety deal. Mancino: I mean that's my question. What's the process of naming a road like that? Who names these roads? Hempel: The name was already there. Mancino: So the frontage road on the north side of Highway 5. Aanenson: Has not been named. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: Because there's nobody addressed off that. Mancino: Okay. But who actually names these roads? Hempel: Typically it's done with the final plat...the developer as they develop their parcel, the city wants to designate kind of a grid of a street corridor system. Like we have Lake Drive East. Lake Drive West. Aanenson: So when you see a plat, certainly you can comment on the name. Like I'm saying this one, because McGlynn Drive was developed with that plat, they named that segment of street and because this ties into, the continuity carried forward. Mancino: But it's very important to know that now. I mean McGlynn's not here. I mean why did we name it. Hempel: The thought is took as the frontage road continues westerly. Scott: Well it can be changed once that crosses Galpin. Hempel: It would be changed. Mancino: Well that's kind of dumb though because it's all a continuation of the same road, isn't it? Scott: I'm not going to talk about roads. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Mancino: Well, I just wanted to know how it got there? I hadn't seen it and so if that's, who's responsibility is it to start. Aanenson: Maybe McGlynn's would be willing to, Pillsbury. Willing to change it to Pillsbury Drive. Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Okay. Any other comments for staff? Questions. Since we're the applicant, we're not going to talk. It's a public hearing, so can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion caned. The public hearing was opened. Scott Is there anyone from the general public who wishes to speak on this particular issue? Let the record show that there are no members of the general public who wish to speak. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Mancino moved, flattens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: I'll take, are there any comments from commissioners? Seeing none, may I have a motion please? Mancino: I move that we approve the preliminary plat for the Chaska School District #112, City of Chanhassen recreation complex subject to the following conditions, which are outlined in the staff report and there is one condition. Scott: Okay. Can I have a second? Farmakes: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we pass along the staffs recommendation on this matter. Is there any discussion? 34 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat for the Chaska School District #112/City of Chanhassen Recreation Complex, subject to the following conditions: 1. The wetland and drainage easement indicated on the easterly portion of Lot 2, Block 1 should be deleted from the final plat document. All voted in favor and the motion carred. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 49 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 5 OUTLOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, THE OAKS AT MINNEWASHTA, HARSTAD COMPANIES. Public Present: Name Address Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road Peter Moe 7161 Minnewashta Parkway Paul Harstad 2191 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Are there any questions for staff? With that. Scott: Keep going. You're going a good job. Mancino: Would the applicant like to speak? Paul Harstad: My name is Paul Harstad of Harstad Companies. We've been here before. Sorry to have to submit yet another plat. I guess to make a long story short. Again, because there were some misunderstandings between us and staff over various issues...and frankly if this project is voted on and approved, we'd love to see that and go ahead with it but I'm not going to take any more time. If anyone has questions, you're welcome to ask me. Otherwise I'll sit back down and go ahead with... 35 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Mancino: Do any of the commissioners have questions for the applicant? Ledvina: Madam Chairman. I'd just like to ask the applicant why the plat was changed from the approved preliminary plat to what we're looking at now. You cited some misunderstandings. I don't know if you want to add anything more. Paul Harstad: Well, as you can see the park is located in a new area. New position on the southwest corner of the plat. Before it was over kind of in the southeast side of the plat. The reason it was previously located there was because we had discussions over the allocation of cost of constructing Kings Road and the underlying improvements. And there was some misunderstandings as to who would pay for what portion of those...and that's why we have resubmitted. Ledvina: Thank you. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Haiberts seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Anyone from the general public who wishes to speak is free to do so. Sue Morgan: Good evening. My name is Sue Morgan and I live at 4031 Kings Road, which is 8 acres on the south side of Kings Road. I talked to Paul Harstad...and I'm very disappointed. I guess we've all been... Mostly disappointed in the park area...It's more accessible. It's more visible. It's tied to the trailway and the walkway along Minnewashta Parkway. I think it just makes more sense. Also there are several other things. I have problems with...there are 12 homes now accessing directly off of Kings Road...Also I guess the construction...Another issue that Paul Harstad just brought up that concerns me is the cost of that road, and I know that that's what all this is coming down to. And right now the area of Kings Road that would be constructed for the development runs across our property...I don't know what the costs would be but we need to talk about it. I don't know if it gets passed onto us as residents...it seems prohibitable. Scott: Dave, could you shed some light on that? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. We've had some discussions with the applicant, Mr. Harstad regarding the plat and you'll see shortly I'm sure another plat kind of reverting back to the old, or the previous location of the park and we've had 36 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 discussions on upgrading Kings Road. We're unsure at this time whether we'll do an assessable project or if we'll work something out with the applicant to essentially...somebody here for our share of the improvements with a payback period of approximately 2 to 4 years. So we're still working out finance details of the property at this time. Aanenson: As far as assessments, if we can just add to what Dave is saying. The city has a lot of people trying to go through that public process and as far as timing, if the applicant were to choose that mechanism, it may not happen this year. It looks like our bonding capacity is out. It may not happen until next year or, depending on who else is in front or ready to go on a project so if the developer desires to go ahead with this project, more than likely they'd have to do it without doing an assessment project and I believe that's the method we looked at before. Where there wouldn't be an assessment 429 project on this road. It wouldn't be assessable. The city was looking at paying for their portion adjacent to the park. This is where there was some misunderstanding and the developer paying for the rest of that portion for the road. And not doing an assessment project. Scott: Okay, which would be preferable. Aanenson: Right. But the applicant still has the right to petition but what we're saying is that the timing of that would be such that it probably, if he was to ask the city to do that, it wouldn't be built this year. Scott: Because of the bonding situation? Aanenson: Correct. Scott: Okay. Does that answer your question? Okay, good. Linda Scott: I'm Linda Scott. I live at 4031 Kings Road and I just had a thought tonight and I'll throw it out. I have no idea if there's any possibility of this or not but with the new positioning of Kings Road, can I come and draw on that? Aanenson: Sure. Linda Scott: I believe that this property here is for sale. And I was just thinking that perhaps if the park went like this, so that this road could stay kind of as it is, you'd still have a park on Minnewashta Parkway. It takes less lots away from Harstad. Just a thought. Aanenson: I can respond to that. What we believe the edge of the wetland, you can see right here where the edge of the wetland is. Most of that area is wetland and what the Park 37 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Commission is looking for is more an area for active park. A play structure. That's really what's wanted or desired in that neighborhood. A place where the children can have the play structures alike. And because that's a wetland, it doesn't meet the need. I mean it would be a preservation area, which would be nice, but what they're looking for is more an active area so, because it's wetland, that didn't meet their needs. Linda Scott: Okay. Well I thought, on the corner there, there was a house that was put in at one point... Aanenson: I think they had some soil problems there with the foundation and such. So it's a little bit poor soils there. Scott: Thank you. Yes sir. Peter Moe: My name is Peter Moe. I live at 7161 Minnewashta Parkway. This park, the proposed park's already been approved earlier. It was very important to all the residents along Minnewashta Parkway and I think the way it has been recommended, city staff is recommending this is the best location. We need land for ballfields there. Park. The trail's already there to make it accessible and adjacent to the lake is very desirable. I appreciate that the city is taking a strong stance on this. That that's the spot for the park because really it's the best spot. Scott: Thank you sir. Would anybody else, I should say would the remaining member of the general public wish to speak at this public hearing. You're under no obligation to do so, but if you'd like to, we'd certainly be interested in hearing what you have to say. Jerry Kortgard: Well being that I'm here. My name is Jerry Kortgard. I live in Pleasant Acres but I also own a parcel just off of Kings Road. My concern is for the park...little kids going to Cathcart. Crossing Highway 7. I see a definite need for a park off the trail system... The other part that concerns me is the density of the houses. This area has been, St. Joe is really close by. This is an environmental lake. I wonder what the effects would be with too many houses in a certain area of land. If you hold the density down a little bit, it might help with the lake. That's all I have. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Well I know, as I recall, I think Dave, we had spoken about this once before where there is this, any development in that area, and also the type of surface water ponding that we would have to do which would allow pre-treatment, as I recall, is quite superior to the way the water's just running right off of there in an untreated state so. Basically any sort of development that would happen in that area, which would require water 38 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 treatment ponding, would basically generate a situation that would be superior to the way that untreated water is running into Lake St. Joe right now. Hempel: That's correct Mr. Chairman. Right now it's prone to erosion from the gravel road and the field across the street. With any type of development, the plans do provide for a storm water quality treatment pond on the site, and then pipe the water across Kings Road down to Lake St. Joe. Scott: Okay, great. Seeing that no else wishes to speak at the public hearing, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: Very short. I do support the Park and Recreation's recommendation for where the park should go. The last time that I saw this plat, and I would support it again. So that means basically that I am not approving this revised plat. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: No comment. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I support the staff recommendation. Scott: Ladd. Conrad: I totally agree with Nancy. Scott: Diane. Harberts: I'm sitting on the fence, and it really stems more from the process. You know I guess at this point we certainly defer to staff. They would remember the plat on July 11th and I'm not saying that I support it or not support it. Where the park is or whatever but I guess I'm just a little uncomfortable with the process. It seems so government heavy perhaps. And I guess I'm just, this is the first time something like this has come before us...and I would just hope that there would be a more positive approach to dealing with an issue like 39 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 this and again, I'm certainly not aware of all the issues or misunderstandings or whatever on that so those are just kind of comments. Aanenson: Can I comment on that Diane? We had a meeting with the applicant last week to inform them that we would be recommending denial. To see if there was room for movement to, instead of going forward with the plat, that we'd recommend denial. If we couldn't come to some compromise. We're moving in a direction where I think we're going to, as Dave indicated, maybe see a plat but it was the applicant's desire to go forward with this plat knowing that we would not review it. Knowing that we would recommend denial but we still are having dialogue and we hope we can come to a conclusion. Harberts: I would hope that you would add that to somewhere in this report as a summary or analysis or whatever, because I think it is important that, since this is a public record, that type of process be noted. Especially with the fact that there is continued dialogue. Because this seems so black and white and one thing I've learned from this process is, there's not much black and white. So I guess I would just, I think that's very, I appreciate those comments Kate and I really would recommend that they be included in here and I hope that there is a meeting of the minds for both the neighbors, the city and the developer. Scott: Do you, the commissioners think that perhaps or consider tabling this issue and wait for another plat to come back instead of sending it on to the City Council and then having it come back? Conrad: It's a low maintenance item. Scott: Okay. Harberts: I guess I was thinking too, would it be better to table it again because of the process but you know, with staffs comment that the dialogue is continuing. The applicant was aware of staffs condition and from what I understand from the staff, that it is their desire to move forward in the process so I would be comfortable with continuing through that, since everyone is in agreement. Scott: Could I have a motion please? Unless there are more comments of course. Mancino: I move that we deny the preliminary plat to subdivide 35.83 acres into 49 single family lots, 5 outlots and a neighborhood park. Scott: Could I have a second? 40 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Conrad: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we follow the staffs recommendation on this item. Is there any discussion? Harberts: Again, I would just reiterate that staff include those comments... Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Preliminary Plat #93-11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 49 single family lots, 5 outlots and a neighborhood park. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE LANDSCAPING SECTION OF CHAFFER 20 OF THE CITY CODE TO CREATE A BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Farmakes: But if you're looking at how many problems you can solve with the least amount of...isn't the majority of times this issue comes up is the transition to single family detached housing adjacent to either single family, higher amount of use or...You don't see a lot of industrial people coming in here and complaining about the poor quality building next to them. Aanenson: Right, but I think it's ironic that we're seeing a lot more of single family adjacent to single family that want to see buffering. Mancino: Well single family detached...it's like, wait a minute. It's just because one subdivision got there first, so then they want to be buffered to the same exact reflection of them on the other side. Farmakes: But you have a targeted customer. If you have an environmental development where people are paying $2-300,000.00. They're moving out to be on a wetland. Looking out the back of their vista they're looking at, not only their property but someone else's property. Kind of after a while, since there's nothing there, being that that's their view and when somebody comes in and puts in a house there...it's not their view. Scott: Yeah. I don't think the issue is, you're right. The issue is not buffering between exact housing types but I think once you, I mean low density, the classic example is the Windmill development. I was at the Council meeting on Monday night and the issue is not low density from low density but it's low density single family detached versus low density single family 41 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 attached. So I think perhaps in this area low density and low density might need to be split into attached and detached. Because I think what people object to are differences in housing types. Aanenson: Well I don't know. I think that was proven tonight. Harberts: Or is it just perception problems? Mancino: Well the one thing about the, and I'll be specific, the Windmill Run and the detached and the attached, is the attached is 92 units of the same looking style that you're looking onto all the time. That that single family, whether you think Rottlund is, that particular development has enough diversity going on in that neighborhood. You know that's everybody's different perspective. But they're sitting there looking at kind of a company town development where all 92 attached, whether it's attached, detached housing, does look similar and the developer has said that there's only one color there and that's a gray tone. They don't have any other tones. They don't do different earth tones, so I'm getting even more particular about the low density and the differences. Farmakes: I think that's a very valid comment based on the simple fact that people who live, who purchase and invest in these homes have a perceived loss of value in their home. Now we can have Council in here recommending that it doesn't make any difference but I would submit that if these are the customers, and if they say that, if that's their perceived loss, then it does affect the market. And it does lessen the value of their home. Now, you don't understand what I'm saying? Aanenson: No. I'm just wondering when we went through that same issue on the Oak Ponds. When you have, I mean throughout this whole city we've got multi-family that's going to be adjacent to something else. Farmakes: But that's true. But the question then becomes, who absorbs the loss? Does the multiple family adjacent to their...or is there a buffer? Aanenson: Where have we ever had somebody lose value in this city? Farmakes: Well let's look at what we did down where 212 is going to crossect where that little shopping center is there. The Klingelhutz property. Aanenson: Mission Hills. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Farmakes: Mission Hills I think it was. There were larger lots and they came by and they created the buffer, that there was some transition. And the question here is I think from people who are in the existing development, you're dealing with humans here, they just don't trust that explanation that it doesn't make any difference. What they want to see when they look out the back yard is the same type of home that they're living in. And the question is, who absorbs what they see as a loss in value to their real estate. They want to see, if they're in single family detached housing, they want to look out on that. They don't want to see... connected homes and be told well it's the same zoning, and therefore it's the same thing. And I wonder, even just two rows of housing or something like that is always required as a buffer... Aanenson: But the issue there is, it's okay for somebody else to live next to those two homes. They still have single family adjacent to it. Farmakes: There's a significant difference though Kate. The issue is that when a consumer comes in and they purchase that, they purchase knowing that. And the people who are in an established home, they're looking out on a farm field and they don't perceive that. They're not making that decision and you saw several of them come in here and they were under the understanding otherwise. That that wasn't going to be there. That they were going to have a like home and I certainly think that the burden for that is on the developer who's bringing in good development to smooth that problem over. Again, what the perceived issue of a buffer, even behind Byerly's here. We're talking about there's a dip coming down and a wetland and then coming up to a bunch of trees. Even though that was several hundred feet there, it was hard to sell that to them that that was a buffer. And I don't know if each case that we come up with here, that you're going to solve a problem by coming up with a long drawn out ordinance. I'm not sure if you can qualify each particular topographic situation that's going to come up and say, well if there's 6 trees in the way here, then that counts. I don't know. That's going to be a real challenge. Scott: I think too that with the Windmill Run and that particular thing, the thing that really generated the interest was their, as Diane was saying, is that however it was communicated to them and I've got my own theory where when you read the language verbatim, that our staff member probably did. The way it is written, it would lead you toward the impression that it was going to be single family. But when you say single family to us, we know it can be attached or detached. You say single family to somebody else and most people will think that it's detached. But anyway, on this particular thing. If we have, I think that if we have two different low density housing types, such as detached and attached, I think we need to buffer those. That's my opinion, and it sounds real similar to what you were saying. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Farmakes: Well yeah, and I'm not sure if you take the tact that what exactly constitutes a buffer other than perhaps consumer choice is a buffer. That it's then left up to the people who are going to buy those detached housing next to the attached, and it's reflected in the price that they pay for the home based on consumer demand. It's believable to me that there would be less of a consumer demand for those units. That they would be less in price than a housing that was surrounded by detached. Ledvina: Well what one community might call a buffer, like 50 feet or something like that, between two different housing types, when we had, what was it. 60 to 100 feet or something like that with Windmill Run. I mean, there was quite a bit of separation distance there and other communities would have said, yes. That's fine. That's more than what we... Farmakes: The word transition too may be part of the equation other than the term buffer. It depends on what you're looking for...not necessarily. It's not necessarily talking distance or obstruction. Sometimes it's a couple of rows of houses. It changes the make-up. Even on PUD's, you have the transitions within your own development. Ledvina: Okay. I can see that, yeah. Scott: Yeah. So I mean in that situation the transition would be single family detached above the road and then the attached stuff starts on the other site. It seems like people, and this is just from the last couple of years. People seem to look at a street as a sign that says now you can do something really different. But when there's property that's touching, people tend to think that it's transition. It's buffer or something like that. Farmakes: New Horizons even has it, and that's what? That's 15 years, 10 years. Was it 15, 16 years old? I mean it's single family wrapped by attached housing. Harberts: Well and I think one of the broader questions too. You know what is our role here. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to protect the value of a perceived problem? What's prohibiting a property owner to, in a sense provide their own type of buffer or enhancement if they feel their property value's being devalued. You know I guess is it, you know I've had discussions with some people that, you know as it deals with LRT or whatever. The perception that it's going to devalue their homes when we put an LRT station, and it did exactly the opposite. So unless you know, what fact are you really dealing with at that perception...the customer, and I think the comments that Jeff has said, I think they have a lot of validity and I think that one of the real questions here is what are we trying to accomplish and what is our role. It's almost on, well I don't want to say on a project by project basis but otherwise how do you take into consideration all the possibilities that may exist in terms of what's included in a buffer. What is buffer? 44 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Aanenson: I guess what we're saying right now is, really we don't have anything that's quantitative, and so this was an attempt, and that's why I think we just want to get some feedback from you. Are we going down the right path? It is a hard thing and if we don't have something in place, how do you tell somebody to do it? Farmakes: Yeah. Well is there a way to do it as something that's desired without quantitativeness? State how many feet... Aanenson: Well we do right now for industrial. We say 100 feet. You have to buffer 100 feet but there's no qualification as to how much landscaping has to be in there. We say you have to, and so what we're saying is, maybe we should have something in there that says, this should at least be the density of the vegetation after the screen and then we also put in here criteria for a wall, fence or berm so there is some more qualitative sort of thing in there. Again, this is kind of a jumping off point. This came out of the discussion, I'd hate to have this whole ordinance developed around this one issue. We're trying to look at the broader picture. This kind of kicked off a discussion about transition. I guess our perspective, single family is single family. I don't know if we want to buffer people from themselves and that's kind of always been our staff position. But we started talking about the different types and attached versus detached, and that makes sense and take it from there. Farmakes: I don't think socially that buffers anybody. Having a transition of housing types. It's just like Joe said, I think the problem that has occurred with that is just that people think of single family. They think of detached housing. The consumer situation. We do not. The city does not follow that. Scott: Did you rework that description? I think it was in the comprehensive plan that talks about low density. Because that's something that we need to make sure that in that definition that single family attached is. Aanenson: Oh, that we list the gambit of things that could be low density. Mancino: Well in the comprehensive plan it says that low density in our city is predominantly detached single family. Aanenson: Right. And that's a true statement though. Scott: It is a true statement but I'm thinking. Mancino: But it's changing. I'm saying it's changing now. We're seeing it right now, and it's going to come up more. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Farmakes: I think it's ripe for misinterpretation. Scott: But can also include. Aanenson: It always will be because the only place we have, the only thing we have townhouses in right now is in medium density. Scott: I don't have a problem with that. I just want to make sure that next time somebody calls in and says, oh I see the property next door to me is blah, blah, blah. What is that? And you want to be able to say, it's predominantly single family detached. However, it can also include the following housing types and that's something that needs to be changed yesterday. Aanenson: That was changed quite a while ago. We try to tell people, this is the possibilities. The range of possibilities. Farmakes: From what I hear, it's not necessarily an issue of city staff or somebody miscommunicating. A lot of times people who are trying to get a corn field off the ground as a development are kind of elaborating as to what goes next door. And the information that they pass on is not necessarily factual either. Aanenson: And frankly we haven't had an R-4 come through. I mean it's been, Ladd do you remember the last time we did an R-4? I mean it just caught us off guard. I mean certainly it's going through the process. It's meets the criteria but when you give some people the realm of possibilities, R-4 wasn't one that we had envisioned. Something certainly the applicant figured out he could apply for. Scott: When you're buying real estate it's...we've seen legions of well educated adults come in here and start their sentence with, but the realtor said. But that really focused my attention on what was that real definition and I sat down with Bob Generous and I read through that thing word for word and I went, man. If I didn't know what I know about planning, and heard somebody read that to me over the phone in the frame of mind of someone who's trying to make a decision, I could see where I would misinterpret that. So there's, I'm 100% behind city staff on that. As a matter of fact, I did talk with the neighbors and I said, when you bring this up at the next meeting, don't mention any staff member's name because I said that's ridiculous. Aanenson: Well we all know what happened and certainly there was no intent to mislead anybody and again. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Scott: No. I agree with you 100% and we know how it happened. However, getting back to this issue. Mancino: Kate, I am in support of the buffer yard and what you're doing here. The direction you're going and that is, having it a little more quantifiable as a baseline where you want, not only buffer yards but what needs to go in there, as a direction. As a guideline for development. Aanenson: I think even on streetscape. I think we have not got enough on streetscape where we thought we were getting something better and it really didn't provide the screening. Mancino: I think Joan Ahrens brought that up in the Lundgren development on Willow Ridge. Aanenson: We went out and checked it. We counted all the bushes and trees and they were all there. Again, it wasn't really what our expectations were. I think we didn't press harder for that. Mancino: And I talked about Windmill Run on Galpin. There is supposed to be a berm and a buffer for those homes since they're on a collector road and it's not working. So they've had to put up a big fence there, which I think is visually, the natural buffering of plant materials would have been so much better if it would work. Farmakes: Would this be better to handle a specific guideline or as an ordinance? I mean like a PUD or like guidelines we use in PUD or a specific ordinance. Mancino: Because we always say... Aanenson: Well I mean, the diagrams and stuff is what makes the lengthy portion. Again, if you want the ability to enforce it, you've got to have it in ordinance form. Certainly someone that comes in, just like they would in any other case, could ask for a variance. Maybe they want to reduce the density because they've already got a significantly wooded area and you say, that makes sense. Okay. Or there's another natural feature that creates a break and in this application it really would take away from that natural feature. Certainly I think those are things we want to look at. We can build it into the ordinance that the Planning Commission may consider other alternatives based on topography, natural features. We can put some of those ordinances down. Or you could just give a variance. Scott: You know what, since this is a public hearing, could I have a motion to open the public hearing please? 47 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Conrad: Well, that wasn't Kate's intent. Scott: Well it's published that way. I figure we can open it. Close it. Get through it now. Aanenson: It was published as a public hearing. It wasn't our intent. Scott: So I guess it's a technicality but. Harberts: But what does it do to the process? Conrad: Boy, but we still can have a real public hearing when we want to though? Aanenson: Exactly. When we're ready to have one. We're not ready to have one yet. Scott: Well. Aanenson: I don't know. Technically because it was published, maybe you should open it. Scott: Yeah. Halberts moved, Mancino 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 there are no members of the public here, so may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: We've had a lot of discussion so can I have a motion? Harberts: Are we tabling it? Scott: That would be a motion. Aanenson: Yeah. If you had specific comments. Good, bad. Conrad: Are you leaving? Harberts: I am. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Conrad: I move that we excuse Diane. Good-bye. I guess I don't agree with many of the things I heard, especially within a residential area. Buffering different things. I've been around so long. I'll just guarantee you that everybody, any new development that comes in doesn't want, the old one doesn't want the new one there. Regardless. I don't think we'll figure it out. I just don't. I'm real sensitive to old, the old neighborhood having priority in terms of they've been here. They've been paying taxes and we don't need to put in something that's really dissimilar next to them, and that's why we have zones. But I'm not sure, we're getting so fine on some of this. So the housing types are different. Then where do we go from there? I guess I'm just not sure, the people are different. Mancino: Say that again. Conrad: The people are different. Seniors versus yuppies versus whatever. So again, I guess I understand, these people that they heard something that wasn't right and their recourse is maybe a different way but to develop an ordinance to separate R-4, I don't know. Mancino: But I don't think that's what this does. The buffer yards. Conrad: Okay. Let me continue. I don't mind what I see here. I'd like to understand a little bit more. I like, it appears simple but maybe the simplicity might not work. So I guess I need to do, I think Kate you said a couple things. There has to be a credit for existing buffers. So if there is one there, you know. But I like this as a, this could be a nice standard for what is required. But I also would like to see the cost implications of this. Aanenson: I did put that together and we'll put that in for the next one. We did look at some costs. Conrad: And I'd like to be able to compare it what we require. So I just need to know if we're costing somebody a whole lot of money. Fencing, I really just hate fences as a buffer. They are not a buffer. They are an eyesore and I tell you, anything where we say fence in here, I don't like that. But I guess my gut feel is there's something good about this that I'd like to keep pursuing and see, it seems like a standard that the staff can fall back on but I think we've got to put it through some tests. We've got to go through some, I think there's a lot of work in here. It looks so simple but I think there's work for us to go through the exercise of okay. So now here this comes and this is sitting there so what are we going between the two, and does that really make sense? Is that all there is? Is that all there is and then we write the ordinance. Maybe that's not all there is. Maybe there's still more that should be done. Mancino: You want a reality check. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Aanenson: Well that's what we were proposing to do. I think Bob put that in his report here too. We've got the cost estimates which he just finished tonight before he left and what we were planning to do for the next go around of this is actually show you, like you said Ladd, visually what does this mean. What is the spacing? Does this add anything to it or not? And maybe if we can find some areas where we could take some slides too and show you. Conrad: So my last question is just to understand. What is a plant unit multiplier? So under A it says .4. What does that mean? Aanenson: If you take that .4 and you multiply it by the number of trees that would be required. So if you need 100 foot, you need 60 trees. Or excuse me, if you need 30 foot. 30 x .6 and that tells you how many trees and you select from that. Plant units per 100. Too complex? Conrad: Maybe not but I don't get it. Tell me a different way. Start from the beginning. Aanenson: Okay. We're on buffer yard A. Conrad: Buffer yard A and so now the transition between two things required between one park property and one public property requires buffer yard A, and so. Aanenson: So if you go with at least 100 foot, excuse me, a 20 foot wide buffer. Conrad: And why, if you width. Aanenson: If you go wider, you need less trees for the buffer yard. If you go narrower, then you've got to put more density in there. Conrad: So any of these are acceptable? Aanenson: Right. Right. You can go wider. Put a wider space in there. A berm. A wider berm. Conrad: Okay. So developer pick A, B, C. Aanenson: Yeah. If they want to put more, if space is an issue to them, they've got a narrow strip, they can crunch it in and so it gives some flexibility. But then that means the penalty for that is, then you'd better, you've got... Conrad: Okay, I get it. Thank you. That's all I need. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Ledvina: I guess I would agree with Ladd's comments. I think expanding on the fence thing. I think berm walls are inappropriate. I wouldn't want to see that being constructed. When you have those types of retaining walls, you're going to have maintenance issues, etc. Safety. I don't think it's appropriate. I guess what I'd like to see is a map. Just kind of, where are the areas that this is going to be, or come into play. I don't think it's going to happen at all. Mancino: You don't think it's going to, pardon? Ledvina: I don't think it's going to happen all that often. Aanenson: That's a good thought. Ledvina: I don't know. Generally I don't like the idea of generating new ordinances if we don't have to. I think that the situation with the Windmill Run, Lake, what was it? Lake Susan Hills? Aanenson: Lake Ann Highlands. Ledvina: Lake Ann Highlands, okay. I think that was kind of blown out of proportion. I thought that, when I looked at that situation, I thought that wasn't that bad. Farmakes: You're going to see that all the way to TH 41. Mancino: All the way down Highway 5. Farmakes: There will be a connection to single family detached all the way down. Mancino: And they're going to be twin homes. They're selling right now. They're hot. Ledvina: 41? Oh, to TH 41. Okay. Mancino: So this is going to keep coming back. Farmakes: 90% of this is going to be where it's been single family detached housing. Mancino: And big developments of twin homes. Ledvina: Well, they were talking about doing berming and landscaping and that kind of thing but, and then maybe this is entirely appropriate but I don't know, I guess I didn't see all the, or wasn't present for all the discussion on that so I have to kind of back down on that a little 51 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 bit, but in general I thought that what was laid out seemed pretty reasonable in terms of the transition and buffering and I could be wrong about that but that's my feeling on it. But if, I think if it's felt this is needed, I think we need to look at where it's going to be applying and... Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: I just have a couple of comments. I think it will come back. I think that Jeff and I, from being on the Highway 5 task force know that it will come back and it will depend which goes in first. If the twin home goes in first, and everybody then and the single family that builds around that twin home already knows it's there. Ledvina: A quick question then. Are those going to be PUD's though, and then we're going to have the control there? Mancino: We can't force PUD's...you can't force a PUD because in this situation. Aanenson: I think they'll be looking at a PUD for the piece that's adjacent to Highway 5 is what they've indicated to us. Mancino: But not the piece north of that. Aanenson: Right. Mancino: Which they're looking at right now. Aanenson: Right. Mancino: Which they're pursuing right now. So there is no way, I don't know if there... Aanenson: Unless as they agree to, they have another neighborhood meeting set up and... Mancino: And so just west of Galpin, that will come up again. How far south we go to single family. Aanenson: Well first we've got to bring that into the MUSA area so that's going to be a while. Again, some of this is market driven which we don't have a lot of control over. How we respond to what comes in. Like I say, I guess we hadn't thought of that type of product coming in. Although we did try to, Boyer's did try to do it on Highway 7. That same 52 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 upscale, but you still have all the Gorra piece which has got high density and medium density adjacent to Highway 5. So there will be some transition zoning through there. Mancino: And it's interesting what Eden Prairie has done, as everybody knows on Highway 5. I mean it has, near Chanhassen it has both single family abutting Highway 5 and the multi-family, what I call multi-family. What I think is interesting there in buffer yards is, they have the big berms. The big slopes and they didn't plant them. I mean they just, you know. They didn't do anything with it which is, I think too bad. So then we have these buffer yards on each side of the berm. Do you plant it on the side where the house is going to be or do you plant it on the side where the streets are or do you have to plant them both? So that's kind of open when it abuts an arterial or collector. And I think we need to look at that. Conrad: So what's your thought. ...buffering twins from single family. And pretend you're a pure planner and don't think about any specific project but, now you can design a buffer between zones. So you would, is it your thought that. On the one hand you're saying, hey if the twins come in first, we don't have a problem but as a pure planner, we're hearing the staff say, they really don't, I won't put words in your mouth Kate but there really aren't that many cities that really buffer the different types. So why are we different? What do we see? What are we trying to do? Are we trying to segment the different quality neighborhoods with little mounds of trees or what? Here we're going to try to appease some people probably. That's the biggest issue to appease something because they probably did their homework and heard some miscommunication before hand. So we'll appease them but now we're talking about the next couple of projects. What are we trying to do? Mancino: ...and my concern is, how... I mean the footprint is 92 units that all look the same. And instead of, let's saying buffering it to single family. Within that 92 units, should we go a step further and have some more open space or ask for open space. Conrad: And what does that do? What does that open space do? Mancino: It creates what I call the company town effect or something. Having it all look exactly alike. Row houses down Highway 5. Ledvina: But that's looking at it from an airplane or driving through the subdivision. How about from the people that are living right there. Mancino: Yeah, I'm just throwing it out. When you look down Highway 5, you're going to see all these. They all look the same and it's going to be segregated and look different. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Farmakes: Why would you see that and create some sort of berm or fort around each development? What you're saying, if there's an existing twin home area, and you have a cornfield next to it and all of a sudden they're going to come in and put in single family. You're not going to get any people from twin homes coming over because it probably adds to the value of their property as they abut single family detached. Or if you reverse that. Who absorbs the difference there? To me the perception would be that the people who abut housing that per square foot costs less than that conceivably. Conrad: I'll just make a point. There will be no diminished value in homes. I'll almost assure you that there will not be a loss. Farmakes: I would say that it's pretty, if that's the case then, why the perceived value difference between detached housing and attached housing? Conrad: Well different people. These are different people moving in. Farmakes: The square footage of it is cheaper. It's a cheaper house. Conrad: Cheaper. Farmakes: Now you can find with Boyer's or something, you can find examples that are exceptions to the rule but as... Scott: Well Lake Ann Highlands, they're talking about anywhere from $200,000.00 to $350,000.00 a side. Farmakes: But you're not going to find that next to Highway 5. You aren't going to find Boyer coming in and building a half million dollar twin homes. You're not going to have that. So the question then becomes is, who has, now if you solve that problem by having, here's detached housing and instead of having the new development come up to twin homes so you have another two rows. A transition of the like housing, detached housing, and that's part of their development. So that they incur, it's easier for them to sell that, so be it. But it's not. It's harder to sell with single family detached homes that are adjacent then, that's that developer's problem. Conrad: But realistically that's not what developers do. They have a product and they bring it in. They don't bring in, have you seen any developer come in with a whole bunch of different products? Farmakes: New Horizon. Goes, it was just like that. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Scott: But Mission Hills. Conrad: They're all the same stuff, aren't they? Scott: No, there's single family detached. Conrad: Okay, Centex but that was a huge. They're bringing that thing in piece at a time. Scott: Yeah, they have all those 8-plexes. Mancino: ...all different levels which I think is even better. They had single family. They had fourplexes. They had 8-plexes and it was more of a planned development versus these that had 92 of the same ones. I mean let's get some different kinds of multi-family within that space. Conrad: Okay, that's a valid point. Ledvina: Well that's variety within a development. It's not necessarily transition from single family detached to the attached. Scott: But that was what we encouraged them to do. Where transition needed to be made. It was residential single. It was large lot. Transitioning. But initially it was proposed going large lot to fourplexes or something like that and then it went from large lot to 15,000 square foot lots and then large lots to maybe 23,000 square foot lots. Farmakes: And we're looking on the other end of the spectrum. There's another end of the spectrum like when that Song property goes up. Where you have half a million, $750,000.00 houses and then you have a cornfield next to them and somebody's coming in and putting in $350,000.00 house. I don't think that that's probably going to happen but the market has it's own way of creating the value to the adjacent property of the development. Scott: Your comment about fences. About the only time I can think of an example where I think a fence made sense is that if we're going to be going from like single family to attached single family to multi-family, and then we've got this neighborhood commercial thing, which we probably will see some of those cropping up down Highway 5. I think about Brook's and all that and then this residential single family right there and they have that fence across there. That to me makes sense but that's about the only time I think it makes sense. Because you don't want to be, from your back window you don't want to be looking into the gas station or the backs of a strip mall. And that's about the, I mean your comment I thought, maybe they don't make sense and that's the only time. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Conrad: Yeah. There could be some validity. Scott: Yeah, that's the only time I can think of it but I agree with you. Conrad: See I guess I'd rather, there's a case where I'd rather berm it than fence it. Scott: If you can do it. But it was like lot line to lot line. Conrad: Hey, that's fine. If they have to put a berm in, then I'm not sure really what I mean but. Scott: There's something else too. Then we have the gated community, which we, I mean Bearpath obviously is a gated community. We don't have any here. Down the road, I think that's an extreme transaction. Or excuse me, an extreme transition but I mean that's, when I think of fences and what we're trying to accomplish. When you talk about hooking neighborhoods together, having the streets and stuff. Something that just popped into my mind is that, we're talking about connecting neighborhoods and encouraging this kind of back and forth, and then here we are talking about. Conrad: If you read any of the planning books, boy connecting neighborhoods. They don't like cul-de-acs. Atst allthey just constantly harp on Aanenson: We put in the administrative section. Did you read the article I put in there about new urbanism? The things that, and that's exactly. Scott: About the guy's who, actually Kate you should probably.._that guy as the expert. You just need to write a book. Farmakes: Just don't live in college subsidized housing. Mancino: Have we given you any direction? Aanenson: Yeah, I think Ladd had some good comments, which we're going to follow up on. We'll bring back some costs and then try to visually show it and then map, show you on the map and try to get a better understanding what this means and how it would be applied and just have another work session on it and then fine tune it a little bit more and get some more comments. So yeah, I think we got direction. Scott: So, can I have a motion? 56 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Conrad: To leave? Scott: Can I have a motion on this so we can handle this public hearing thing? We already got the public hearing taken care of. Do we have a motion to do something with this? Like table it. Give staff direction and then have them bring it back. I can't make that motion, by the way. I can second it though. Mancino: I move that we continue this discussion to our next Planning Commission and have staff give us some new input from all the commissioners suggestions. Scott: Good. I'll second that. Mancino moved, Scott seconded that the Planning Commission table the Zoning Ordinance amendment to the landscaping section of Chapter 20 of the City Code to create buffer yard requirements until the next Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: Oh, I just have one question Kate. ...detached and attached. It's obviously happening in other cities. And it's obviously happening in other cities near us. I mean is there any. Aanenson: We can do that with the last one too. Mancino: What is Eden Prairie doing? Are they having the same kind of property owners come in with the concerns that we're hearing? Ledvina: Maybe just survey some of the Planning Directors and say, what are your thoughts on this. Aanenson: That's a good suggestion. Farmakes: And the majority of time that we have seen this, has been in those attached, detached and large lot to, and we're going to see a lot of... Mancino: Well and I think it's going to happen, you know when we get down to 212. I mean it's going to happen everywhere. Aanenson: It's going to happen everywhere now because we're getting infill. There's not a lot of space between developments. I think you're going to see more and more single family and single family. When you've got an existing neighborhood. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Mancino: Well it's an end product right now and realtors or real estate people aren't long range planners so in 10 years nobody may like this product because it all looks alike or whatever. But right now it's selling and that's all they care about. So I'm concerned what we're going to be left with as a community in 10 or 15 years when the baby boomers really get to that age, and are they going to want this product? Ledvina: Yeah. We're discriminate. Mancino: Yeah. I think we are more discriminate than maybe those now. Are we going to want those areas where you have this footprint of everything looking alike. That's my concern... OLD BUSINESS. Conrad: This is either new or old. But thinking about this tonight. After all these years I've been around Kate, we opened up a public hearing again. Tonight on, let's see. For Lake Lucy. We opened up a second public hearing. We had already conducted one. We got citizen input and we opened it up again. Why would we do that? And then the City Council's going to open it up again. I bring this up because Joe, it's entirely your call whether you want to do that or not, I think. There's no requirement to open. Once you have a public hearing, you don't need to open it up for anything else. You can say, what do you guys think but we didn't need to go through that public hearing, to my knowledge. Scott: Well what if it's, I'm thinking but what if it's noticed? Aanenson: I'll check on that. Scott: Yeah, because that's. Conrad: Well if it's noticed, you should do it. And this is not a big deal but. Aanenson: What he's saying is we didn't have to notice it as a public hearing. Conrad: I think we can manage, you know they're going to say exactly the same thing they said to us before. And I think it's fine to open it up, if you think that you want to. Scott: Well you know what, why can't we have a consent agenda? Aanenson: Yes, and this has been on before. Sure. We could. We talked about that. Like when Todd had something for HRA but I think there was an issue, there were things we 58 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 wanted to tell you about that have been brought up to date. I guess we could. I'll check on that. Conrad: And tonight is just fine. And again, I don't know that there's a, I'm not making a point one way or another other than saying, Mr. Chairman, you have a lot of power in terms of, you didn't need to have a public hearing on this item. Had you talked to Kate 2 weeks earlier before she published it. If she says we're going to have one and they show up, you'd better have one. Yet on the other hand, there's just no reason why we need a second public hearing. Because we're reviewing it for the second time. Aanenson: You're right though, it should be under Old Business. Conrad: Yeah. That's the way I thought we used to handle it. Scott: And I noticed when I looked at the Council, when I was at the Council meeting on Monday night, I mean that was kind of the thing. Where there's stuff that we pretty much had beaten to death shows up as new business, or old business. Or new business but it's not a public hearing. So maybe what we should do, and we can make this decision as a commission. If something's coming back, maybe what we should decide is just to say, let's say it's tabled or whatever but just say, should we have a public hearing next time. No. Great. It's old business. Aanenson: That would help me so I would know whether or not you want it... Scott: That's a good idea because then we can just decide, cut it down and we can all get home at midnight. Conrad: But the other thing, you can open it up and let people talk. But then we don't need to go through the mumbo jumbo of opening the public hearing. Aanenson: Or ask to have a spokesmen. Conrad: Right. Does somebody want to respond to this, and it's not a public hearing. But anyway. Scott: So, do we have old business? New business? We've already had our open discussion so we can forego that. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 ONGOING ITEMS. Aanenson: Yeah, I've got ongoing items. I was just going to update you on Bluff. Diane did go meet with the Watershed, did I tell you that? Mike Mason went with and it ended up being a little bit longer than she thought. To have them understand that we're trying to do a study before we actually do the implementation. They kind of wanted to see the whole package so it looks like we're going to get an additional $20,000.00. So we are going to go ahead with the Bluff Creek study. We're putting together a contract to get somebody hired. We hope by mid-summer we'll have a plan in place of Bluff Creek and I think that's real exciting. Conrad: Didn't she want $50,000.00? Aanenson: Yeah. We got $20,000.00 from the DNR and 10 from us...so I think that's going to be a great project. And again, to decide how we want to develop. What we should preserve. What areas we want to enhance. That will help with development in that area... Mancino: I'd like to make a comment about the ongoing issues. One of them was, I went to the Park and Recreation, what was it? For citizens to come. Scott: The pre-referendum. Mancino: Well whether to buy park space and whether to put it out there for everyone to vote on as a referendum and I think people felt, it was a very good meeting. One of the things that I suggested at the Planning Commission, I called up Kate and said, as a Planning Commission that we could look at with the Park and Recreation, is the land use planning. As you heard on MPR about Marine on the St. Croix, which went into there and just the top line. I don't know Kate, if you heard anything more but they have, if you want to develop in Marine on the St. Croix now, they spent 6 months going to other, looking at other city ordinances around the country. You have to allow 50% of the land, developable land to be open space. The other 50% is developable and they're doing some sort of clustering. I mean it's smaller lot sizes. So one of the light bulbs that went off in my head, at the Park and Recreation meeting was, in some of the areas where the Park and Recreation sees...land that we want to maybe keep some of it as open space, look at it as a zoning opportunity for more clustering and 50% open space... Aanenson: A way to preserve natural features, right. Mancino: To preserve. Because right now our PUD so many times, we're saying what are we getting out of it. Well maybe if the PUD were smaller lot sizes, 10,000 and even 9,000, 60 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 and 50% of it is open space. Or 40%. I mean I don't know what the percentage is. I certainly don't have the answers but the concept was very interesting to me about doing it and looking at some of the 1995 study areas and in that Bluff Creek area, which could be a very interesting way to look at it. Any reaction? Ledvina: Well my reaction is that, the lot size issue has been a very contentious thing among the City Council...and even when we come to PUD's, we can't pare down the lot sizes which, I agree with you. I think that number's got to go down. We've got to force that number down but I don't know. There's a stigma as it relates to lot sizes and cracker boxes and this kind of thing. And I don't know. I don't know how we beat that. Change that. Conrad: I look forward to talking about affordable housing. I don't get a lot of the rationale for it but that will be a fun exercise. But back to, Nancy your point on open space. Are you assuming the bond referendum, or they won't be able to get that? Mancino: Well I would say in conjunction to almost. And I think it would be very specific. I mean I don't think that it's opened up to the whole area. Aanenson: Yeah, the comprehensive plan you'd have to tie it into because there's trees in this area we want to preserve. So therefore this is an area where we would give a PUD consideration. Identified on the comp plan. Mancino: Do an overlay zoning over it or something for an open space preservation. When you do an overlay and it is very specific and it has to make sense and it has to be quantifiable and all that kind of stuff because I just think the problem I have always had with PUD's, with some of the PUD's that we're seeing is, we don't feel what are we getting back at all. I don't think we're getting back any open space. I don't think we're getting back. Farmakes: But how do you absorb the loss of the property owner? Mancino: You don't have a loss hopefully because of the clustering will allow the developer to. Farmakes: That may be true but the topographic part of the property may not allow 50% or how do they pick half, because you lose half the value, developable value of your property. I think it's a great idea but it's not my property. Mancino: Well I think we would have to, I agree. Conrad: It would be just terrific if we could do this but I don't know how to do that. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - February 15, 1995 Mancino: And what I'm saying is, maybe we could investigate what, I mean this city took 6 months. They had a moratorium. What happened was, from what I listened to. A developer came in. Was going to develop 175 acres, and the grass root citizenry were very concerned about it. The Planning Commission. City Council said what do we want to do. Do we just want to have Marine on the St. Croix just like every other subdivision?...kind of town. Let's do something about it. So number one, they took and had the courage to do a moratorium and say, let's go out and investigate what else is happening around the U.S. These citizens went to different cities and investigated this and the moratorium was supposed to be done January 1st. They extended it I think for a month as they wrote their ordinance. And so... you know they did the due diligence. I mean they really took some time in saying, how do we want this to work. And they have other property owners, and they interviewed some other property owners that have 200 acres, etc, who were supportive of it. Very supportive of it. Conrad: What are land prices per acre out there? Mancino: It's got to be high. Farmakes: They're pretty high. I have a friend that purchased a lot out there. It's not cheap. Aanenson: Well we'll get a copy of the ordinance and see what it says. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Scott: How about these nasty Minutes from the last meeting? So can I have a motion to... Conrad moved, Scott seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 1, 1995. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 62 CITY � of CHAN1111, 33EN '` d 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 1, 1995 SUBJ: City Council Update On February 13, 1995, the City Council took the following action: 1. Extension of the preliminary plat for Subdivision 86-31 Great Plains Golf Estates, Don Halla. The preliminary plat was to expire in March and due to weather conditions, soil suitability tests were not able to be completed. An extension until June 26, 1995 was given. 2. Final reading was approved for the amendment to Chapter 20 concerning Grading and Erosion control. p of the City Code 3. Approved the site plan for Boston Chicken. 4. Tabled action until March 13, 1995 for the Lake Ann Highlands rezonin and subdivision request. $ • • - L w'--c .- C a 1� S aNnEammne 7m°N- S 24.• -•,.• grF•^ " -r.-- _ J 0 9 7' i N R a7 Gm..7•..�ir'".S� �To r a r... =^� I,G- ,f w •t S^7mNm_.w 00. • n a R e_.-� < n Nnn Efn`, x'70 - n O -<- SrwS CO c " •n+ F--�,_.g,.wOrt c_?'= c3,3 a07 o ypv -0 m?,rt C n_ < -4.0±l 2 - ,r': 5:: 2 I I-l 3- - ^f-'03 Sy0ey < m wd7v - iy 7 < n- mow _ wsL7s O - _ '; 7• N ir' n 7'm`<n n.O -R 7'_.-- O�inn- c n 37- r7 w� .,j T-= 3 O R ..y J7o�p,-aw own °C<d n07 '00p 0D0nc F.Rrc• r -- v. --.R Sy,< m � El -'" -0,9 S?•C =41, G^E _?� ;,n 7'=�0- tAZ •�' SG. '�.W _ •-• o r v 7`me�=' S?y:' f- CD 3 EPS. 3 -o.o;C Ino i:::T. ..2.i----7i o _Gw -• ; n rr,1 ted^ m C . m w o y n _ o o w 2 _O 3aa C SS ? 7 -•Ta-S CG ,„ O.rt=s� GE3==m n 3 S n..;N ° �mno rnw7d nn * =2;‘,74-9, a'2--=',..--='-• =-=< S � win =bax Q G S. n F 000 a 00 n _w a -%7 n 7? ? -• -. I �// 0. ?-. a S Rn3g.- n3 E we oC.1 d.• �♦ w Oos - H m3 G. S 7n • a.mvo7nC-vS9=r<�C_a ?S. Epp 1 Y 7 c='o O 0-0* to. v aF^gi n 3 S d<c w d Go s.2-Fig=^;'Fi.c F ' ans cn z I '—� 3' = 7C^A'_. S re 0- - ° r,,.F., °77 C' ti7H w eta-s•-.g O nnR - S R 7,mf, ypC0 �° ?tea n7p7o7r.Ow R ?' 0 Lwpm H °c 3-m� sf� R s a o n _w '�G!yn *=.<3m�� ti'pNAir7 :< 3`G�m° O ° a�nCRN =. ern -7 �- '< nn 3w mn-v'i77.• F.,. ,Rn 0 7 - "a'0 = w 3.3 C n°- , m R C'<'< 7 tnC Sn -a3 n A.: r 7 ap: ....... "i _ E_.•<`-7 m R may' �3f-y fry° m °S7w nftmN 0,�pwe ow_3-,f^',S C7•�•^woe c 454 •a� -7 •' - * CT `< 3-0=• "a. En Q. 1-G.-A,. ?2 ;-=!:1,50 o Srny•?Cy m N•c"c mn a,^apOc 073 eSiOD - * ca. G=R :,w Fes'-Hc.- in 3F n. dN'1 n7 3SwaL o-. c3. Cm 0-..:..-0,7,•- JJ _ R 0'A -nRnNa =nwwR. nwpea,AN < m 7 SOOii� SJ IIa?ppa T 3-0 a .7 N'A lc S .R _ nom 0E7 .n° ^• e -a G mw3y .....• , fy 3-0 g• < r.- „a7 00--" 7S nOG7w 12,;-I_ Ow0,9c S -R'C e3'� V/ _.n n0 7nA Rte__ ? '.wnO E;y H 3,-R wi0 7R .fns°''''. 3fny7 ° w._ 7 ° >R'7n7' �•. a_ .'n.-770- _�%�,yc7 vmw "sn ,��.n;^. 0.1P, =.4?R *._.*,0 /'r B.'fl, R R ° Sn R w_-O °-°••47".3 3 7 w S,•••G- 3 R R n 3 1.<7 _ 7.•_.- ww ° H .^Tn m S- 0 . °7•N Onw OD na En°' ' Ra^- ? _'- - pe �n,3_ =Vmnm < r'2Eop =0o=a ^ E_2,w n°_w:-C.o eco^7300 7-"'7E £ C a _ a w 7 g n w fy 7 -n c= -.N. b._ 3 ww^7 R S- M 2E.; 2 E.; h x•n Cw an • .a0= �I r7,7t'ww,"2=o,-.5' i?.3 4'3•.7'£:5 3Ffyw 3V '^3 c'�a�=rS, '3 S. 5.1,113 E. A-5'-',3 cmna'n=mo73a a30-3 .?,-:; s^ 3,F7R • 0•?=7 S N 7 R R S°. n R00 cw a>r�' O O < - 0 w SR w •m n O.� mmama ■ n �r0 3-QOm aH�O n7 MOO.7.NCSnD 0-r.=re fy I ?t n.07m m -.e S•<7Cl) N m7 E oS ',*- nwaaw =-coo.'" w G w.<R r^ri�. ,�w naA- oO -.= 7 Ne.�mR _ 7•=-w Iy m. n S--r.-`! cRH ■■ -nn7 c-a w O ti n.Eo3A 7" v .'< 7 7 tr c _S7c_.F cno 7' w co c wa n w 2--'n'�' m °N' 7 7 ° m-• Sn 'a N m Gw O M.- a)• 1: ! n -c ,. .3 w a^a7.1" ?-m=n n,'O3' .7 ECO 751)rS.w30 Lai nn mw-A 7,2 O^ax'"Cy p'•- EC-cr'yn7, m nH N w n r 7',,„ -es 0 v,'° <7.3.e m E 0°3' co .--,.- 0 cC S o w -0 N IiI Oii • y7 1 a- - n•HS wnC 3' Rc C.O' •w;1,---'.el ° %-.z.4 EaCn< 7• a _w � (11.11) II. • . 7 Rw .0.`!uni ^O ray C.n° n n.j 3 O w m 7 N 7•E ° n ich ?3'^ ‘7.7.26.2-. *co „" H =nn�^ 3o_ro7�� n w , `1 1 ' �.,Z. '4,1 FT::: w:;o^•<Rc -'0am -i co - ... mCGDr 5/ o IN .el c o'm fe 3`�' �o ^ �,W.� -00' F = x •- '„�. -?'�� _�i � '/N., .,t R r r O, r', 7C7 n�ma�3�. n> � a • t rt r..:: -T'ii '• I a n ^e 3 n gal rg,.C w R'co n O ° f' GGG222 ;. I ' .vim!. 4- _ -• der:.• 111:126441i- l ..i.. g-_E 7" �v 7 a=c c t-5 f<y ^ v 0- =9 .,:r-'_ I • ,' 13 iy'^o'^ 'y ow E E O N70 00 - • 1i:. . .4 i e ,L'+' y I .- ,,C-R? 67 ae,.m- Sm07 b I 5�U •• 4 f�. ,Ind • 3 n w : 3a5 ° F7 � �pby • 2 Sm E A -,c.n p j 3..r? =y A- . f .. _ .. .'L. # •rQ{>,{• f] CD aEfwy Tut S;'4i7�o? nnn 7 , .1.' /f35+,r �,,el,.. :..gt. tn • ,. arg. •nU3a3?S C3nlc <� ^vmanetsy ~�f \' •re n n _,E <ab6.^7 = wCn nC3 O070 fn90 �Cravn m .. y.- ' a��'F� a�jC e _��; (. +--c_,� . ' � � tib :7 H s�' 0a a �•' f ;"�`_ TIV��.-4'!F�`^!`C^75. ll Tn0x'00- an `�E 7 �wm yn 7pe'a a^= ^ 7• t �' T3�'•-3a7C`< 3'F-S A S .rta0 r R ll y :Au,-.1•. ra ...t a°cmc nO <�.a -w S yC:::1 mot' �i3- 4i< R 7 ? C 7 °-.O .a w R S aY .ri� •:.'I 5,0. sq),..;.: Ik .. D= a- n iy -` n e N.,n D es 3'° E naw •r I •. < -y^'a'1S sl C°g QO C n,'=.3 A c co m n i !lr ; 411..1 -ar_3r. -�ry amw- 780 = ` A /` F �1 �777—__. 71111•47;: r _oyr•om F.3c pn•pRn• �/`7 `. .7 Rw nw H 7;'3'wy,OC• .�''�.' So c ° -T '.. I —.~' •._ 3�n vd�>^^Ga ' ' I II 'g• I ' - _,,, r; -,z .0 17 0at,- E_-0 n cn ° y®per .` t• --•' .- --.r- lilt 7Rma F7oDv n7n G a '�G fj ] ° SfS ?„co 7m n n w n-dmi-a m i wq , , . ppr�; �' "�.� E.� 1 , a ` a n O 070 0.<*n w O w n r Y C +� • 174'". > L f' '•{ 34 ` '.1 es. -1 Cre lii 7.0in r,Oe N 0, •}•�b °m O.A 177 C 0°7 i. n n n er o am C-+a E n�. 3-7.7..7 n-a-S ° •$6, n v„n, E 7 , .+ toQ G-,-,?.N�n 7 5 .. r1 _ 1._ •I •..• tt0ie a %r3 ° n o no;-_3•w o 7 E i P � ,, i - 7n3. H3m,,,, -° a3°,e_. k• n y •�,. w To g;�_ F 49 s, 3(n s I . �-.. . , . r#r .f:, ,y4)r 5 •�r • C ,_n a c m., E., 'n c 7 c I r. I I'' j �. __ _:.`Lf.i:�C'f