Loading...
1. VassermanRidge RezoneRequestCITYOF CHANHASSEN 7700 Iv ~k_~ BOJ ~,~ PO BOx 147 :2 l~:,hasses MI4 55317 Administration BuildinD Inspections Engineering Finance Park & Recreation ??7 i!2} -. '~L271!i Planning & Natural Resources Public Works ~',,: 95; 227' !300 F, ~52227137, Senior Center Web Site ,' ,',,,, MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Planning Commission Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director June 26, 2002 Vasserman Ridge Background On Tuesday, June 4, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Vasserman project. This item was tabled for the following issues to be reviewed: Zoning application - the use of the PUD · Trail location · Access to the Przymus property · Increase tree preservation The applicant has made modifications to the subdivision plat. Following ~s a discussion of each of these points raised by the Planning Commission and the staff response. The staff report has been modified to reflect changes in either strike out or bold. Analysis Zoning application the use of the PUD The applicant had always proposed a low-density subdivision for this site since they acquired the property in the 1990's. There are three zoning options for the low density; they are RSF (15,000 square foot lots); PUD-R (avg. lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. minimum of 11,000 sq. ft.); or R4 (single family lot minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. and twin home lot minimum of 10,000 sq. ft.). Staff worked with the applicant to provide a transition between Arboretum Village, Highway 5 and West 78th Street and the Przymus property. It is staff's opinion that R4 zoning is the correct low density zoning to provide single and twin family homes. Staff has learned that the least control of natural feature is the control of a single-family home. A single family home is the most likely to want alterations in the future, it has also been a historical problem that 11,000 sq. ft. lots cannot accommodate a 3 garage which is standard with most single family homes today. They also maximize impervious surface which limits future modifications. Planning Commission June 26, 2002 Page 2 Trail location The Parks and Recreation Director has added additional comments on the trail and the reasons for his recommendation. (see attached memo). Access to the Przymus property There is a large wetland that is on the northeast portion of the Vasserman Subdivision. The wetland carries into the Przymus property, which narrows the development area adjacent to West 78th Street. A plat was drafted that meets city code by a developer working for the state of Minnesota as a part of the condemnation hearing for West 78th Street. This plat, which staff supports, shows how access will be gained to the Przymus site. Extending a street from Vasserman Ridge to the Przymus site is unnecessary. Increase tree preservation In an effort to save as many of the significant trees on the site as possible, the applicant has revised the grading plan to raise the intersection of street A and street C. This will enable the developer to custom grade five additional lots around this street intersection. There are now 17 lots in the west-central and northwest portion of the site that are proposed to be custom graded. The homes have also been changed from look-out to rambler. In addition, conservation easements will be placed on Lots 22-32, Block 2, and Lots 29-34, Block 1. A conservation easement will be drafted at the time of final plat. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval as shown in the staff report. CITYOF. CHANHASSEN ?0 Bsx 147 ~ministration ~' 'c 9522271100 c, c22z7i!~0 Building Inspections Engineering Finance Park & Recreation Planning & 17atural Resources Public Works Senior Center Web Site MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director / .,/I Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director June 20, 2002 SUB J: Vasserman Ridge Trail Plan Kate, in response to questions raised by the Planning Commission regarding the Vasserman Ridge trails, I offer the following information. 1. The West "wetland" trail located in the rear of the lots is identified on the City's Trail Plan. 2. An East "wetland" trail located in the rear of the lots is not identified on the City's Trail Plan. 3. Another East "wetland" trail lying North of the creek is identified on the City's Trail Plan and partially constructed. 4. Construction of a second trail paralleling this trail would constitute a duplication of services. 5. Even in the absence of the new East trail being on the plan it was considered since the new sewer interceptor was placed in a configuration, which may have accommodated a trail. 6. Construction of the sewer interceptor identified large deposits of poor soils, which would make construction of a trail in that area difficult and expensive. 7. For these reasons the new East "wetland" trail was dismissed as an option. Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Revise construction entrance note from 50 feet to 75 feet minimum. 21. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded against the lots. Access onto Century Boulevard shall be governed by the conditions of the development contract for Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition. 22. On Sheet 6 of the plans change the note SDR 35 to SDR 26. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Blackowiak: Item carries 6-0 and this item goes to City Council on July 8th. Thank you. At this point in the evening we are going to take about a 5 minute break before we move onto item number 6. So give people a chance to stretch their legs. Get something to drink, so 5 minute recess. We'll be back. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST TO REZONE 68.76 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT~ RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND R-2~ RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE~ PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 46 SINGLE FMAILY HOMES~ 38 TWINHOMES AND 1.94 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL; A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER A WETLAND~ AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HWY 5 AND NORTHEAST OF CENTURY BOULEVARD~ VASSERMAN RIDGE~ LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Steve & Susan Cohoon Cindy Weber Mike Burton Marc Anderson Ken Adolf 7525 Bent Bow Trail 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata 10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Madam Chair. I'm wondering Kate why this was, has this been before tile Planning Commission as a concept plan? AaBellSOll: No. Sidney: Wily? Aanenson: It's not a PUD. A PUD we generally do a concept. This is, we haven't done a lot. We've done twin homes but we haven't done on mixed R-4, but it's a straight subdivision. Except for that little piece that you're giving a different zoning to, so it's really a straight subdivision. 31 Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002 Sidney: Yeah, I can see where the commission may have lots of comments about trees and mix of single family homes, twin homes and road alignments. Blackowiak: Questions of staff. Steve, would you like to start? Lillehaug: Well, wow. This is a pretty good report. There's quite a bit of information here. Page 10 of the report. Since we were talking about, let's go to the compliance table first. Page 8. You had a couple of properties there where your front yard width, you had them circled. Shouldn't those properties also be in this, shouldn't they have the letter B on the compliance table because there are about, I mean I counted. There's probably about 10 more. Aanenson: What the literal interpretation of the ordinance said if you're on a curve or an elbow, you have to meet the 50 foot at the 30 foot setback line. They're pretty close. We just noted it to have them go back and just double check that. It's pretty close. Lillehaug: So that applies to the ones. Aanenson: These don't. These aren't on a curve or anything. It would be this lot, Lot 13. Lillehaug: How about 5, 6 and 7 of Block 2? The front yard. Aren't they also, they don't meet the minimum correct? Aanenson: I measured them at the setback line. I think they can make them work, sure. If you want to put that on there, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Lillehaug: Okay. How about on Lot 1, Block 2, that first property or parcel when you first enter into the subdivision there. Are we comfortable with noise abatement for that? Aanenson: Well the issue there was, we were trying to taper the sight line and MnDot had a colmnent on that too. This was attached. You have the access point going into the commercial piece here. You need a minimum of 300 feet which we have, but that was one of the comments when we met and this got tabled is we wanted to make sure we had clear sight lines based on the fact that this will be carrying quite a bit of traffic so Matt requested that that be tapered. Lillehaug: So we're sacrificing noise in trade-off for safety then, correct? Aanenson: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. Alright, how about the, I've got to find my correct page here. It's on the northwest corner it shows clearing limits or construction limits I guess. And it really almost goes all the way out to the wetland and I'm seeing basically all them trees being wiped out. Aanenson: Are you up on Lots 24 and 25 where we asked for conservation? Yes, we asked for a conservation easement on the back of those. Again, going back to our project. Lillehaug: So I'm looking on Sheet 5. Lot 24 and Lot 25. Basically I see they're setting limits of clearing for future custom graded lots. The limits go all the way out to the wetland. Is that indicating that it's basically clear cutting? 32 Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002 Aanenson: What this tree survey doesn't show either is that our project took those trees out. We have replanted along through there and 137 through here, but we still are recommending that a conservation easement be placed on the back of those lots. Lillehaug: ...construction limits also and it appears that they're just putting a trail in that area. Aanenson: Well the easement's already there for our sewer project. I'm not sure there's any grading through there except for our, to put our trail in. Lillehaug: I'm looking on 5. Saam: Yeah, I'm not following you. Those construction limits go, I mean those are all no grade lots up there so the construction limits end basically at the right-of-way line. I don't know which line you're looking at. Lillehaug: Well I'm looking on Sheet 5, and they have, in the legend they have the assumed limits of clearing for future custom graded lots and then I look on Outlot F and it has that line symbology around that entire outlot. And the only thing that's going in there is a trail. Aanenson: Right. Well I think if you wanted to add that as a condition, because that should be a no touch, and the only thing that'd be in there would be the trail on our easement. Saam: They'll have to submit a separate grading plan for each of those lots so we'll get a chance to comment on it, but you're right. It shouldn't be way out there. Aanenson: And that is a condition of approval, custom grading on those lots so if you want to modify that or make it stronger, that's fine, but that is a condition. Lillehaug: You addressed the high water level on a couple of the lots, and just fumbling through the pages here looking for that, but on that southerly pond, there's an emergency overflow through the bermed areas and it appears that it's, there's a half a foot difference from what I would see on the high water level to that emergency overflow and I would think that they would be at the same elevations possibly. So we're only talking like half a foot but I would think that should match, unless some modeling maybe. Aancnson: Right, I think what we just talked about is moving the outlot over to between here. Between the berms, and then there was a condition that we raise the...pad has to be 3 feet above that pond level, and there's a condition in the report. Somebody else asked me that too. But there was a condition that Matt put in the report that those have to be raised to make sure all homes are above that, so that is a condition. Saam: I'm not following your issue with that Steve. What is your issue with that overflow? Lillehaug: Well. Saam: Yon want us to match the high water level elevation, is that? Lillehaug: With the absence of modeling I guess. I mean I wonld assume that that high xvater level would match that emergency overflow elevation. 33 Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002 Saam: Not necessarily. The high water level is determined by, there is an outlet structure. Another pipe that will outlet the water. So using a 100 year storm, the amount of rain. The applicant has shown that the pond will reach an elevation of 962. So for storms above and beyond that, then it can get out on that emergency overflow of 62 1/2 so. You don't always see the emergency overflows at the high water elevation. Aanenson: I was just going to make clarification on 23 then, Matt did have a condition in there regarding the house pads be bumped up. There was a couple that, yep. Lillehaug: Maybe you can come back to me... Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce. Feik: I'd like to follow up on a couple questions I had. I spoke with planning department earlier today. The park, the private park that would go in. When that goes in, would that necessarily come back between, come back to the planning department? Aanenson: We haven't in the past. We disclose what it's going to enclose. We still would check it. Engineering reviews them. So does planning for setbacks and they do, are required to get a building permit but as a general we haven't taken them back. We disclose to you what's going in, a swimming, a changing house and the like but. Feik: My concern with that is parking. We have parkiug both sides of the street with kids and strollers and things like that, I've a pretty strong concern about where that could go. Additionally, I guess where the flavor of this is more of a private community versus a public development or more general development. Would you please discuss, you talked briefly about it during your presentation, the difference between having them private streets versus public streets. Would you go into that a little bit deeper? Aanenson: Sure. Again, we have a number of subdivisions that have private pools, neighborhood parks. Longacres doesn't have a pool but they have a private park. Ashling Meadows, which you just recently approved is public streets with a pool that's under construction. Private park. Springfield has a pool, private park. Public streets. And on Kurvers Point also has a swimming pool. All those are abutting public streets. The ordinance that the council and you most recently made recommendations to change is that you can only have on a single family zone, now this doesn't apply to multi-family but in a single family zone, low density, that it has to be public streets. You can only have 4 homes off of a private street and that is only through a variance. That means there's some reason that it has to be, so this has to be based on the low density, has to be public streets. Unless you wanted to notice it and kind of, you know throw that on it's head but that's kind of the direction we've been going under the last year and frankly we don't have of this scale except for Hesse Farms, this larger subdivision with private streets. Saam: Kate if I could just add something to that. Even before last year, even before that ordinance was changed to make a private street a variance, even then if you want to go with a private street and single family homes. Aanenson: It's 4 homes. Saam: Yeah, well it's still limited to 4. 34 Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002 Aanenson: 4 homes, right. That's what, yeah. That's what I said, yep. Feik: You spoke about Outlot F that is going over to the park. Aanenson: Correct. Feik: Would you please discuss a little bit more in detail what the planning with that. Aanenson: Well I think in the early meetings with the applicant we discussed the transition with the trail back in here. There is a creek, water movement between the connection of those two wetlands, and as we move, the city took through dedication that property immediately to the west. To the Pulte, the city's going to have ultimately the control of that property and the development through a natural, so we wanted to make that transition. It wasn't connected to any lot so we recommended that it be preserved, just as open space. Feik: That's it for now, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay thanks. LuAnn. Sidney: Okay. I guess, well one question and this leads into I'm sure Uli's discussion. I guess my greatest concern, and I understand that the subdivision we have few tools at our disposal to really make a lot of modifications as long as the subdivision meets ordinances. However, you do mention in the report that there is a significant stand of trees, and the mentioning that Lots 29 through 34 in Block 1. Do you have any advice or guidance on how to save more of those trees? Aanenson: Right. I did mention a couple options. Again, if you look at what the low density, what this is guided and working with the applicants, looking at what they want to do to the north, which is the more traditional PUD. That only gives you as small as 11,000 square foot lots so you're not accomplishing anything. What we looked at with this type of home, when you have a twin home, typically you have a little bit different buyer. The lots are a little bit smaller. They're not as inclined to make as many, maybe modifications to the rear yard such as swing sets and the like so the only option that we saw is one, if the city chose to acquisition to say we'd like to buy 2 or 3 of the lots through the park fees, or if you were to look at taking the density in there and try to make some of these as twin homes so they wouldn't lose as many total units but it'd be a different type of product. Now I'm not sure how receptive tile applicants are to that but there isn't the flexibility ora density transfer in this, in the low density. And again we pointed that out as the fatal flaw of the overlay district. Now again, they've got some approaches to raising the street to try to preserve some more of those trees but it's, l'm sure it's still... Sidney: So your suggestion is potentially increasing the number of twin homes? Aanenson: Well, that'd be one way to do it, right. But you'd have to, to really to preserve that you'd have to not. Sidney: Not do anything on the lot. Aanenson: Right. I mean they're going to do their best to try to work around tile trees, but the best stewardship of that, because once you get a homeowner and not unless there's a conservation easement, their needs change over time. Whether they want to add on or put a swing set or put something else in there. There's a little bit of control. 35 Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002 Sidney: No road alignment that could be changed to help that? It doesn't seem to be the case necessarily. Aanenson: Well I think, you need the looping street to cut, to move through here. They are going to, they are looking at raising the street so, I'll leave that up to them. Sidney: Okay, that's it for now. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: Alright, my turn. Blackowiak: You're timing yourself? I like that. Sacchet: ! have a lot of questions...department earlier today to not take excessive amount of time. Can you show us again clearly where the primary and the secondary Bluff Creek Overlay lies please? Aanenson: This is the subject property in the black and it runs through, what I'm not showing is all the property owners because the property lines on the Longacres go out into, abutting that so it runs through the middle of lot lines. So for the most part where the rub is, is in this, in the treed area. Sacchet: That's primary? So actually the whole property is either primary or secondary? Aanenson: No, no, no, no, no. No, this is the majority of the property. We're down here on the edge of that wetland, so what we said, now again as part of the overlay district, when this comes through, our job is to look at the delineation which Mr. Svoboda did with this project and we looked at that again and re-evaluated that line as looking at the fact that we've also put the interceptor through and looking at that so we designated the primary line as the wetland edge. Now some of those trees fall within that and the secondary zone is that buffer, but having said that. Sacchet: The wetland buffer. Aallellson: Correct. Sacchet: Which is going to be the defined based on where the builder actually puts the buffer. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: And it's variable between 10 and 30... Aanenson: Absolutely, right. Absolutely. And then, but also in the BluffCreek Overlay District the goal is to preserve those stands of trees in that primary zone. Sacchet: Thank you for clarifying that. Now, in the staff report you make reference to the Bluff Creek plau making recommendations of the storm...and restoring the big woods. Can you give us a little bit of an idea what that actually means and how that could possibly apply to this? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Aanenson: Sure. That was a discussion point that came up at the Pulte project. We had in the past tried to approach that. The problem with these, when this got approved, don't do that. This was done over 10 years ago. Put the lot lines out into the middle of the wetland. This subject property was done, the Longacres was done that way. We had approached the neighborhood about increasing the quality of that wetland. It was met with resistance so that was one of the recommendations of the creek. That we have moved away from that but the other one that we did feel strongly about that was recommended was the preservation of the trees, and we worked on that one with the Pulte project. How we did the density transfer from on the other side of 41, and we preserved the woods along, the wetland and we also preserved some of the trees down here because that was again one of the recommendations. Sacchet: So in the Pulte project we actually implemented that to some extent? Aanenson: Through density transfer, correct. Sacchet: While here, since we don't have the density transfer, we don't have a way to apply this transfer conclusion? Aanenson: The only other way you can is through acquisition. That's correct. Sacchet: The only way is through acquisition. Well that leads to my next question. When, in your discussion you talk about the wooded area. Concern about that it's desire to preserve them and you list 3 possibilities. You say, I'm talking specifically where we're talking about the lots 27 through 34 in Block 1 where we have...the staff report about 25 or so significant trees other than...oaks and basswood and I think there's some ash in there, between 30 and 40 inches. I mean they're huge. They're definitely a city treasure I would say. Now you say there are basically 3 options. Eliminate the lots. Basically does that mean we would declare that they can't build there? Aanenson: Well again, you'd have to either transfer the density or acquire them. Sacchet: We have a hard time doing something within this framework. Aanenson: Correct. Or, what we had suggested, and you know whether the applicauts willing to do that is. if they were to make other twin homes in order to preserve... Sacchet: ...elsewhere but you say elsewhere. Where would they... Aanenson: Well, in another area where's there's not as many trees. Sacchet: But basically in the same area but maybe shift them a little bit'? Aanenson: Right. So they're not losing so many. Sacchet: ...totally somewhere else. Aanenson: Within the project so they're not losing units but they're getting a different, more of a different type. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sacchet: And convert these units to twin, that's basically saying that because elsewhere it doesn't really exist. Now, we heard from Commissioner Sidney about possibly swapping the park, the pool park over into the trees area...staff doesn't think that's really feasible? Aanenson: Well my concern is, in the ones we have in place, if you were to go look at them, they're highly manicured. I think the expectation in those areas is that, you get sun and they're not. I think if you want a natural area, and even if you're just trying to grade to get a pool in there, you're not going to accomplish what you want to accomplish. I think you need to leave it natural. That's the goal. Not to try to get something in. Over time the homeowners association is going to want to make changes too, then it's a constant. Sacchet: Now since the framework doesn't really lend itself to shifting densities and all that, has there been any discussion or consideration to make it a different framework? Aanenson: Yeah, certainly. You could up zone it. I spent 2 years on the piece next door. I'm not sure I was willing to take that on. If you want to give me that direction, I'd be willing to take that. Sacchet: Can you explain... Aanenson: You'd have to re-guide it to a medium density to get the different types. Sacchet: You'd have to guide it medium density basically in order to have the flexibility you don't have. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Alright. A couple other quick questions. You mentioned a couple lots that don't have the right size. They're a little too small. Some are a little too narrow. In your conditions, you have conditions that say, just to clarify. It says all lots meet the standards of the R-4 zoning district, that takes care of all that? Aanenson: That should cover it. They have to meet all the requirements. Sacchet: Then interesting thing that peaks my interest is Outlot C. When you said...did you point to Outlot C? Aanenson: Yes. I believe that's where they're also going to put a monument in this outlot. Sacchet: I will probably ask the applicant what that monument will say. Just for reference, coming back to the trees once more briefly. In the Pulte project we manage to end up saving about how much percentage of the significant trees? 50? 60? Aanenson: In acreage it's probably closer to 15-20 acres as far as trees. You've got 12 across the street. On the north side of the wetlands. It's probably closer to 15 to 20 acres of trees. Sacchet: 15 to 20 acres of trees. Aanenson: Right, but even in that scenario, not all the density was achieved. They still were under, it was compressed down. 38 Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002 Sacchet: If my memory serves me right we had about close to 10 real significant trees and we were saving. Aanenson: Yeah, actually the significant trees on that one were actually just on the other side of this wetland. There were some right along the back side of this. Sacchet: Alright, that was the biggest one... Aanenson: We had to actually field check that trail. That went in. There were a couple of very nice trees right there. Sacchet: So there's certainly discrepancy here we say 10 percent and Pulte say... Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Real quick, yes I have a few more minutes. So you said there is no impact to the wetlands to the north and west basically. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: ...basically eliminates that small impact... Aanenson: Yeah...where the one wetland. Sacchet: ...square feet of wetland, that's eliminated by putting that bridge in there. The staff report... Aanenson: This is the one wetland that will be impacted. Sacchet: That's the only impact? Nothing up on the north. Aanenson: Correct. That one is our intent to bridge that one and it should be impacted, and this is just over 2,000 square feet. If it was under, it would meet, the diminimus wouldn't require any mitigation but it's just over 2,100. Sacchet: ...mitigation plan is we have enough through there...they bring the plan in eventually we'll be fine. Aanenson: Right, because it's so small. Correct. But there is wetland that they're managing around the total perimeter which adds the complexity to that when we talk about moving things around, following that con'ect. Sacchet: And another area I want to briefly touch on is the noise abatement. In the MnDot letter it makes a very strong statement I believe that the municipality, us in that case is responsible for that. And one recommendation is that the berm is a little wider or higher or something. Does the plan in front of us includes that'? Aanenson: Yeah. The plan that went to MnDot was the original drawing that had the pond on the other side. If you look at this berm, when it originally came in, this was another...got tabled. This pond was actually on this side of the berm. 39 Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Oh tabled by you, okay. Aanenson: I'm sorry. We didn't bring it forward to you, excuse me. That we would, we held it back. We asked them to make some modifications. The berm was actually on the other, I mean the pond was actually on the other side of the berm which we recommended against. We wanted the pond on their property. Through that we talk about how to transition the berm to get it effective in the mitigation of the noise plus provide sight lines and through the landscaping and the like, and Mr. Braslow who also has done work for the city, in reading his recommendations, and the construction techniques and that was also the recommendation the same EA that Pulte did regarding types of construction. The air conditioning units and the like, the construction techniques that are used today in a newer product can be built to mitigate that so. Sacchet: So I assume also the concern of MnDot about the access of the road has been taken care of also? Aanenson: Yeah. Actually they were concerned about the distance between this driveway and the access point over here. Matt and I did speak about that. Our requirements is a 300 foot minimum which that should meet. Sacchet: That is taken care of. And then the concern about the drainage on the commercial lot, that's something to be addressed when the commercial lot comes in? Aanenson: Yeah. What their goal is, is it can provide drainage into this lot. They'll have to provide calc's. When that comes back in through site plan review, those two lots, hopefully combining together will come in. If they can't use that, they'll have to manage it on site. There will be a process that goes through site plan review. You will see the project. They'll have to show us how they're going to manage it. If MnDot does not give them approval, they'll have to manage it on site and we'll deal with it at that time. Sacchet: The wetland...connects with existing trail which terminates at Lot 13 of the Meadows at Longacres. Could you just point out where that Lot 13 or trail to Longacres is so we know... Aanenson: Sure. Actually. That comes up through this lot right here and that trail goes around the back side so it comes up, if that makes sense. I'll go back to the plat and show you how that works but it doesn't show Lot 13 on... This is Lot 13 on the Longacres lot so it ties into the Pulte project, and then it ties back up to the other subdivision. Sacchet: It goes across there, right? Aanenson: It goes across, correct. Yep. There's a trail right there. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Running out of time I gave myself, however real quick. I mean, and I'll comment about that in comments more but I do have some fundamental question from your findings in the rezoning it says there's an elevation of site characteristics including mature trees. Do you think we're saving enough trees right now? Aanenson: It would certainly be desirable to save more. I'm not sure exactly how we can accomplish that. Again, the applicant does have suggestions to try to, you know we recommended another one. A couple more lots be custom graded and that would address that. Their response to that because they did see our report. 40 Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002 Sacchet: In the findings, you're not causing environmental damage. Another finding, it will not change or a condition that we have to look at, it will not change the essential character of the area. It will not result in the destruction of natural features. Help me out. Aanenson: Well, there is significant trees here. We're not impacting any wetland except for that one finger. Our project did come through and take these trees out. Sacchet: So if you look at wetland...I totally disagree with the trees. Aanenson: You're right. There is a component that we're having some difficulty trying to manage but in the overall scheme of, it is bordered on all sides by wetland and the highway that you're trying to mitigate the highway and push up against the wetlands so, is there some things that we can try to do a better job that we're working with them on, yes. But for the most part in the other wetland part they've done a good job on. Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Blackowiak: Rich. Slagle: Just a couple. As I listen to Commissioner Sacchet's comments Kate, and you've done a wonderful job on this, it strikes me as I see a project of this magnitude, how should I say this? Go back to other developments, I won't name them, that we have seen before us and typically there's questions about number of homes. The impact on trees. Wetlands, what not, and in some ways we start to question whether or not you should have this number of homes. And it ends up being a give and take over the timeframe of this project so I first of all see this and I say gosh, maybe we don't need this many home sites. I'm going to throw that out first. But my question to you is, I was, and I guess I'm surprised and maybe you can share with me, but what I've seen up until now, when I saw this Thursday was that the trail, and I don't know if you can put the trail map up again, but the trail went from 41 all the way to. Aanenson: No, she's just going to run up and get a trail map, that's fine. Slagle: Okay. Even if you have the overhead map, I'm sorry. That you have a trail going from 41, which would be north of Pulte. In talking with the Park Director that 41 trail would actually connect northward on the east side of 41 by Mr. Olson's property, and connect to the Longacres trail system. It would then proceed going east to the north of Pulte, which we see and it would connect up along this north western edge. Go down. Connect up north to Longacres and then continue along the wetland to where it would enter or approach Galpin along the creek. In fact we planted all those trees and my belief is that along those trees you're going to have a beautiful path that would go and provide our citizens with wetlands and what not to view. And now I see in this plan, not that path but instead of going down the middle of a neighborhood, joining a sidewalk in fl'ont of people's homes, passing a private park, and then continuing on to West 78th. So literally the entire northeastern section of what I considered to be a trail system has now been removed and so do you, can you help me why that's happened? Aanenson: Tile Park and Rec Colnmission, or tile Park and Rec Director makes recommendations on this. He did meet with the applicant and that was his recommendations. I guess what I would suggest, if you feel strongly about a different direction to that, that you'd make that a condition that the council consider that. They're going to have the Park and Rec Director's recomlnendation but if you feel strongly about some other alignment that you just pass that forward for the council to consider. But as far as why. 41 Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002 Slagle: Or possibly not vote for it. I mean it's an option that I as a commissioner. Aanenson: Well I'm not sure that we can usurp what, you know his recommendation is going to carry forward. I'm not sure you know. Slagle: But I mean, let me be clear with this. We receive a packet, and to the commissioners I address this, full of, I mean it's a huge project. And then to have some days to look at it and then not have the Park and Rec Director here to ask. I'll ask the applicant as to why this was redefined, but not have the ability to sort of further investigate and research why this was done and what could be done to change it, I don't know if I feel comfortable and there's a couple other things I'll address later that I don't know that I'm comfortable with to vote yes and say, send it to council and have council go over it. I guess I'd be interested in looking into that, but I want to hear what happened in that conversation as to why that changed. That's all. Blackowiak: Steve, did you have any further questions? Lillehaug: I guess I'd like to hear from the applicant. Blackowiak: Okay. Well l just have a few quick questions. Page 4, talking again about the restoration of the shallow marsh. You said that it met with resistance before. Is this our chance now? I mean we're not getting any trees out of this deal. I mean that's kind of what, we have to just say that. So why, if it's a goal of the Bluff Creek plan, then is this our chance to move forward with it? I mean why would we ignore it? Aanenson: The problem is you've got property owners on the north side that run into this so you're going to have to get again, we don't do this anymore but we have property lines that run out. They've all been transferred, all the properties on this...go out into the wetland so it's virtually, unless you can buy them...I believe is not going to be possible. Blackowiak: So you can't work on any restoration anywhere? It's all or none is what you're telling me? Aanenson: Well you'd have to get all the property that interest along here...and you won't be able to achieve that. Blackowiak: Why can't you do some? Why can't you do the northwest corner? And work out some of it. Aanenson: ...it affects everybody. If you increase what, that was the goal is to increase the quality of that wetland. Feik: So you're increasing the water level? Aanenson: ...little bit to get diversity of wildlife in that wetland, right. That was the recommendation of the study by the experts, right. And that was approached 5 years ago. Blackowiak: And so you'vejust dropped it is what you're telling me? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. I'm just thinking this might be the time to reconsider that. On page 8, 42 Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002 compliance table. It talks about again we change Lots 11, 12, and 13, Block 2. How do we get around this no deck thing because it's going to come back. Somebody's going to complain that they didn't get a document and we want a deck. We're entitled to a deck. Aanenson: Right. What we talked about with the applicant is that, while they've shown oversized pads which are bigger than their typical and they're bigger than their 60 by 60 building pad that on those lots they'll be coming in with a little bit different product and then they'll also put those covenants with those lots. The 3 lots. Blackowiak: So they don't get decks is what you're telling me? Aanenson: No. They would have decks. It would be a little bit different type home. Custom built for that lot, right. Right. Blackowiak: I just don't want to run into, I don't want to see this 3 years from now. Aanenson: We don't either. That's why we talked about it. Again, they're oversized building pads, but so we would come back with a little bit different type, prototype of home that would, where they have an area to build out, the house is oriented... Blackowiak: ...all the trees removing, do we warranty, does the developer typically warranty trees for a year or something? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: I didn't see a condition. Aanenson: There should be a landscaping escrow requirement. Blackowiak: Okay, is it a condition that I missed or where? Aanenson: If there's not we Call get that. Blackowiak: Well it could be, it would be in tile subdivision? Aanenson: Yeah, it should be with the subdivision. If it's not. Blackowiak: Okay, I'm not sure. I guess I didu't see it but. Aanenson: Generally it's done with final plat, with the development contract that we put the escrow in, but there would be an escrow requirement. Blackowiak: Okay. As long as that's in there. Page 16. Building inspections, Fire Marshal comments. Number 5 is blank and I couldn't find a letter or anything to substantiate what might number 5 have been. Or is there just maybe not a number 5? Okay, that's fine. And then you've got trail changes. That's another one of my biggies too. I thought too that it was going to be a green way trail based on all the discussions we had with, in the park and open space referendum and that was the whole goal. Along the primary corridor a green space. Focus on that so that'd be a big concern of mine. Sounds like we've taken up a lot of time with staff questions so let's move on to the applicants or their designee. Come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record please. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Mike Burton: Good evening Madam Chair, members of the commission. My name is Mike Burton. I'm a Land Development Project Manager for Lundgren Brothers and with me this evening is Mark Anderson, Vice President of Lundgren Brothers. Cindy Weber, our Land Coordinator, and Ken Adolf our engineer from Schoell and Madsen. President of Schoell and Madsen. Just like to open by saying we really think staff did an excellent job, and that with their recommendations we are planning to bring everything into compliance that is being recommended. Just want to open by saying that. And so I can start, probably come out of the gates here. We've been talking about these 6 lots right in here, and the trees there. See what's going on here, you have about a 10 foot cut that we've been planning. This below drops off quite quickly right here so it's the age old question of woods or wetlands. I mean if you build this up and then all of a sudden you're dumping dirt back down into the wetlands so we tried to preserve that wetland area as best as we could. And so what we've done now is come up with a plan that would hopefully save more of these trees, and that is this plan which is blowing this area up. Here's the 6 lots. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. Do this way is that private park, so first we'd like to say that probably these homes will never build a swimming pool because there's a swimming pool in this private park. So, and hopefully they won't be inclined to build play equipment because we're going to have a really nice playground in this park as well. If you look at these trees, we went through this afternoon and highlighted all the different types of trees. We've got 99 boxelders in here. We've got 44 elms, 56 basswoods. If you look at this line right here, this dashed black line, inside of that line we're already intending on saving those trees, with the exception of the building pads. This line here is the 80 foot by 80 foot plus the front yard that we worked with Jill Sinclair and that's the building pad area. The back yards, this was always planned to be saved these trees. So what we've done to try to increase this area, which was the area you were going to be cutting down was, we're going to raise this row 3 feet. Right here, and what that will do is allow us to expand this line of saving out to this point out here where this new red line is. So all these new trees will be added in. In addition, we've got some nice oaks over here. That's the red line is what we're going to do is build some retaining walls in there, and save those, And so I think that's about the best plan we can do in that area. Additionally, Commissioner Slagle you mentioned that trail. Well, as Kate mentioned, we met with Todd and he wanted that. He wanted exactly what Kate was saying. Have the trail come here. Come down to a sidewalk. We started with a sidewalk coming down right here. We're actually having a sidewalk on this side as well. But that was what he recommended and so that's what we're doing. Slagle: Did he give a reason? Mike Burton: He did not give a reason. He just, that's what he wanted. So if we looked at the compliance sheet, the lot grid, we are going to bring all those lots into compliance. Every single one will be in the square foot. We're just going to, we've talked to Ken, our engineer. We can tweak everything and make it all work. And we will do that. I think you talked about the trees. The trees being sort of trashed back in here. Well a lot of those were already taken down as Kate said, by the sanitary line so we're planning to move trees out of here. Some of these trees out of here up into the first phase this summer. What we're planning to do is do this in 3 phases. The first phase we'd like to do this summer. 20 twin home and then the HOA park. And incidentally, this outlot right here is not a monument. That is a buffer. We're going to have a monument here and here on the side of the road, and this will be our twin home monument, and we'll have a single family home monument over here. And it's going to be called Vasserman Ridge, named after, well what we did is we like to name our communities after some historical event and we consulted with Chuck Dimler. I don't know if you know Chuck but his father knew the owner of the Gateway Group Home that this was the original farm, and evidently this was German who used to deliver water to the area farmers and so, they called him the Vasserman so, we're calling this Vasserman Ridge. What else? The bridge, the pedestrian bridge. We'll build that. We're 44 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 assuming that that will be part of the park dedication with the trail. That the city will pick that up and that that's part of the trail. It's a pedestrian bridge. And just for the record, the commercial, the use we're under the assumption that we can get gas pumps there. Blackowiak: Kate, neighborhood business does support gas. Aanenson: Yes. And convenience store. Blackowiak: Or what's? Aanenson: What the PUD ordinance says is that it referenced the comprehensive plan and when we did the comprehensive plan we wanted a more specific clarity. What's neighborhood oriented because in the BN district it does allow shopping centers which is too broad, so in putting the PUD together we said no single use can be bigger than 5,000 square feet. And again the intent is that we wouldn't have one large center but we'd have something that services the neighborhood. Whether it's a local pizza place, show repair, bagel shop, whatever, but it wouldn't be one large single tenant so anybody that would meet that criteria, and still be consistent with the neighborhood business district would be permitted. And that's the way the PUD ordinance reasons. Again, the architectural standards was the other concern that we had. That it be a pitched roof and match the flavor of both neighborhoods. Blackowiak: Okay. And one other question just for my clarification. Drive thru's allowed or not allowed? Aanenson: No drive thru's. Blackowiak: Not allowed. Okay, thank you. Mike Burton: I think one of the recom~nendations was tile high water level mark be raised 3 feet. That's no problem so we'll be doing that. Matt, I kllow there was a concern about tile storm sewer line coming through that 20 foot berm. What we're going to do is make that the emergency, is there a plan I can show that on Kate? Aallensoil: Suro. Mike Burton: We'll make that tile emergency overflow. That will take care of that, and then actually it will increase or it will improve the sound mitigation. Yeah, so right here is the proposed storm sewer line going through this berm and right here is the emergency overflow so we're just going to move that over to here, and now it won't be real deep and we'll just continue this berm right on through here and so that will be better sound wise for these twin homes and it will be a longer distance then to come up through here so we think it will improve the sound mitigation. These 3 lots up in through here, we looked at real hard as far as the distance from the buffer and he did do calculations on it and found that only in our estimation it was Lot 13 that we would need to apply some restrictions as far as porches and decks to the rear and, which is typical for ahnost all our projects. But this is the only lot in this subdivision that we've found that we need to restrict some of the floor plans from having decks or porches in the future, and it's typical for Lundgren to provide a matrix and disclosures and restriction statement and we're happy to provide the city with that and so that's just that Lot 13. I guess I don't have any other comments, if you want me to stand for questions. Blackowiak: Thank you, yes I would. Commissioners, questions of the applicant? Rich. 45 Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002 Slagle: My focus is initially at this meeting is going to be the trail, and I guess my question would be, even though it sounds like the Park Director, who's a wonderful park director, either gave you direction or suggested to go that way, my question would be is would you be against taking that trail along the back edge, and I do understand that you get down to the Lots 11, 12, 13, have some issues with setbacks. But my question is, on the north side and towards the west, you've got homes that in many ways it looks like it's the same depth as the homes that I'm asking for on the northeast...east wetland. Would you be against having a trail go down? Mike Burton: Well I think we could certainly discuss it you know further with Todd. We'd have to kick it around I think in our office if that's something Todd would want, though I think we've been pretty cooperative with working with staff so. Slagle: I guess my question though would be, speaking by myself but potentially for other commissioners, if that is something that we would be interested in seeing. Because as we sit here, you either vote for it and ask that you go and talk to someone in staff and depending on how that discussion comes out, either it goes forward with some thoughts that we might have, or it doesn't. And it goes to council and gets approved, and so sometimes it's tough for us to say you know okay, you guys go talk and we keep our fingers crossed that something happens that we might like. And I guess my question is, this is a serious enough issue for me because of what I have seen proposed and the thoughts of getting the green way and the Highway 5 corridor, Bluff Creek Overlay that I sort of what to know the positions and so I'd like to know your position. Whether you're for that or against it, and are there concerns that you need to address, and if you want to go. Blackowiak: Name and address for the record please. Mark Anderson: My name is Mark Anderson. I'm with Lundgren Brothers, 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata. Commissioner, I'm a little confused. I understand that there is some plan that allows the connection of a trail all the way to Galpin, is that what you're referring to? And you're trying. Slagle: Sure. Mark Anderson: Is there a park plan or? Slagle: We're talking for him to be able to go...but basically what's happening is, on the south side of Longacres, your development, you have that trail that runs along, and actually it goes up to whatever street that is. And then it continues on where it stops. Just before it stops is where the connector will be down to your's, I think it's, what's that circle up there? Aanenson: Bent Bow. Slagle: Bent Bow. You have that connection down, connector to your lot. What...are saying, if you follow your finger along the tree line going to the southeast right there, keep going. Keeping going. Keep going down the wetland. Works it's way. Okay. What we're saying, or I'm saying is that that's what I believed would happen. It would go behind our homes on the edge of the wetland. It would be a very nice public trail just like you have in Longacres. So now what I'm seeing for the first time this weekend is that the trail is actually not going to go along the wetland, but actually it's going to go in the middle of your neighborhood and continue down to West 78th and then they'll have to walk up on the north side of West 78th, a very busy road perhaps, to get to Galpin. I guess I'm just wondering, since you're amenable to the trail being in your back yards 46 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 on the homes to your north and west, would you be open to running a trail down along the east and southeast? Mark Anderson: Well the reason I ask the question, I'm trying to understand the big picture here and come up with the solution that may be alternative D or E, which is not quite either of what we're talking about here. The problem that I see is that we started with staff as to the trail system. They said this is where the trail system goes and then we designed the subdivision to kind of fit and work that in. I'm under the impression that the way it's designed right now, there's not sufficient room behind those homes for a trail without having serious impact on the back yards and the privacy of those people. So that's why I ask it. Now it is possible to perhaps come down the road for a while and then cross back in perhaps on Outlot C. But that's why I'm trying to figure out, where is it going you know. So we can work with you but we designed the subdivision with these parameters. We were basically dictated to, and to make that suggestion means we would have to redesign this whole thing. Slagle: I understand and I think for the commission and staff, the difficulty obviously is the park director's not here to present the thinking to us. So we are in a position where we either vote for it, don't vote for it, table it, what have you. And I'm just saying to the rest of my commissioners, although it's my comments. I'll make it quick but this is enough ora concern for me to get an answer as to why this went this way that I would, I really want some meat into what some future action so. Mark Anderson: And that's a way to connect the trail. Slagle: Exactly. That's all I have right now. Blackowiak: Alright. Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions of the applicant. As you might }lave gathered already, my big issue is the trees. I have a real problem with, and what I looked, I did a similar exercise by the way as you did. I took the plat that has the trees ou them and I looked, one thing I was trying to filter out, well how much is boxelders and how ranch is good hardwoods, and ill that area here that staff pointed out, Block 1, Lots 29 through 33, or 34 roi' that matter, according to the staff report there are 25, mostly all oaks and basswoods and one ash that are between 30 and 40 inches. Big trees. Huge trees as far as I'm concerned. And with the tree preservation that originally the grading limit that you originally suggested, once you have tile custom lots going in, there will be 2, maybe 3 of those trees surviving. Now with the addition that you just presented to us with the extension of that tree preservation or no grading zone. No grading to the north west, there would be 3 at best, 4. No actually it's only 2, at best 3 trees in that group that will be added so it's commendable. You're doubling them from 2 to 3 to 5 to 6 of them that will be saved. However, I still struggle with it that from 25 or depending on how you count it. Actually depending where you delineate it, it's even more than 25 of those really huge trees, oaks, basswoods and ask, only between i0 and 20 percent would stand a chance to survive. From a city viewpoint those trees are a treasure, and so I wondered, I discussed that before with staff. There are these different options. Eliminate the lots. Replace them with twin homes. Maybe swap the park over. Maybe go a different route and a different framework. To me that's, as Commissioner Slagle pointed out, this is big enough an issue that goes deep enough to me that I feel it needs to be looked at before. Mike Burton: If I may. 47 Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002 Sacchet: Yes it's your turn. Mike Burton: If you look at this plan real closely here. Again, this is the area that we were saving. This is what we're proposing now to add. Okay. Sacchet: Right. That's what I addressed. Mike Burton: So we just counted 33 trees inside this, between the new red line and the black line that we're saving. Sacchet: Clarification. I mean I wasn't counting trees. I was counting trees that are between 30 and bigger. 30 inch and bigger diameter. Mike Burton: Okay, well. What we would need to do is take the time here to count the trees that are remaining that we'd still be pulling down but remember these are. Sacchet: I counted them. Mike Burton: Okay, well these are building pads. These trees are going to go regardless because they're in a building site. Sacchet: Yeah, there aren't that many on that lot actually. 33 has 3 of them. Mike Burton: Well on this lot, this area would be the area that we'd, in any event, in building a home there, you'd be taking those trees. So these trees around here are trees we're looking at seeing if we can't save some of these trees actually, are we not Ken? We're looking at that area, but we are again saving these trees with retaining walls here. With building this, these trees would go. These trees would go. So it's these trees right in through here that we're talking about. I just don't see those as a great number of trees right there for a subdivision. I think we've saved a lot of trees. Sacchet: Yeah, well you sort of give me a framework. It doesn't really answer my question. 1 don't know whether it is going to answer my question to be honest with you, but let's move on to the other couple questions I have to keep this moving. Outlot C, you said it's not going to be a monument. It's just going to be a buffer. Buffering the higher density from the lower density. Mike Burton: Correct. Sacchet: You think that needs a designated buffer for that? Mike Burton: We thought it was a good idea. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Well I can accept that. Now real quick question, why did you spell Vasserman with a V? Because Vasserman in German is spelled with a W. Mike Burton: Well because we thought they'd call it Wasserman, like Wasserman Lake in Victoria. Sacchet: So you preferred the sound versus the spelling? Alright. That's a good answer. I believe that's my questions for you. Yeah, we talked enough about the trees. Thank you. 48 Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: LuAnn, questions? Sidney: Well I guess Uli covered the tree issue. I'm still quite concerned about that. Anything you can do to take an accurate inventory of the significant trees as part of the application would be good. And then also, you know trying to save more trees if there would be possibilities. Mike Burton: Lundgren wants to save trees. We don't want to take trees. Trees add to value, you know. That's what we want to see on the lots. They add to value. Sidney: And I guess, I guess this is more comments but I am concerned about the berm that's being used for noise mitigation and I guess I'm wondering how the appearance of that could be improved. I'm thinking of, it's going to have more ora wall appearance to me because you're going along 5 and then all ora sudden boop, there's this huge berm. And I'm wondering how that could be sculptured. Mike Burton: Well we have put together a landscape plan. I could lay that up here. So this area we are planning, this is, under the buffer yard requirements we're already planning on planting that berm. Sidney: Okay. And I guess the other comment I'd like to make is that in the report we're talking about 60-70 db noises. Sound levels at certain times for Highway 5 noise, and I must say, I guess I'm concerned about the noise level in general in this neighborhood, knowing from experience that 60 db is enough to disrupt my sleep so I guess I'd like to just share that with you. That we... Mike Burton: Well that's why we thought we'd take that proactive approach and contact Mr. Braslow and have him do a study and we pretty much followed his recommendations and think it's as good as we can do with this site. Sidney: Yeah, so I guess questions about just the appearance of the berm and you certainly have more expertise than I about that, and then maybe just a heads up that there could be significant noise. Mike Burton: Yeah, you don't really want to undulate it up and down or you lose the noise mitigation. You have to have it up there and consistent so that's what we followed. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce questions. Feik: I've just got a quick one. Outlot C ad.jacent to Lot 10, Block 1. Why is that an outlot versus increasing the size of Lot 107 Lot 10's a very, very small lot. Mike Burton: We're going to have a homeowners association here that will be maintaining these outlots and we want to make sure that that buffer between the twin home and single family is maintained. And that it's maintained in a nice way. Feik: But there's not a buffer between 28 and 29 on the other side. Necessarily. Mike Burton: 28 and 29'? Feik: Over on Block. 49 Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002 Aanenson: Block 1. Feik: Block 1, yeah. There's no buffer between the twin and the single there. Mike Burton: Yeah, I think we have a different orientation. You're talking about right here? Feik: Yeah, there's no buffer there. Mike Burton: Yeah, we have a different orientation. See as you drive in, we're going to have a twin home entrance and a single family home entrance and as you drive in, we just want a little separation as you enter the single family on the road was the idea. Feik: And that couldn't be accomplished by just making the lot bigger? I'm just curious. Mike Burton: We just wanted to be able to have control over that area by making it an outlot that the HOA will control and then maintain that landscaping by having control. Feik: Alright. That was my only question, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Steve. Lillehaug: I have one quick question. First off I commend you on addressing all the conditions that staff has recommended there. Mike Burton: Thank you. Lillehaug: What, I've got to beat this tree issue to death here. The trees are very important here. I think Commissioner Sacchet addressed the trees in the center parcels there good. I'm looking at the Lots 24 and 25. What are your feelings towards dedicating a conservation easement on those lots for 24 and 25? Mike Burton: And we're talking Kate I think about that in that area. Aanenson: Correct. Mike Burton: Yeah, we didn't have a problem with that. Lillehaug: Okay. Good, thanks. Blackowiak: And I don't have any questions. Rich, go ahead. Slagle: I kno~v we're debating it, and I don't know if this would work or not but in Settler's Ridge where we've got the fencing on the south side of Pioneer, would that help? I mean would that, or would that be too much? I'm just wondering how. Mike Burton: We talked to David Braslow about fencing and it was his, I think his opinion was, he doesn't like fencing. He likes plantings inore than fencing. Sounds runs into fencing and he thinks it bounces over it and travels over it. He likes vegetation to absorb sound as opposed to the fences. 5O Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Lillehaug: I have one more quick question. Blackowiak: Sure. You commented on the bridge. Actually this will be a question of staff. Do you have any comments on he addressed the issue of the bridge'?. Aanenson: We'll check with the Park and Rec Director. This kind of to go back to Rich's comments just for clarification. It may be moot to you but when park and trails are put in, that's credited towards their park and trail dedication. Sidewalks are put in at their expense. So however Todd negotiated that, but that's how it works. Park and trails are paid, so I don't know how Todd came about that. But if there's a trail...I'd have to ask Todd about how the compensation works and obviously they want to know. We'll check on that for you. Mike Burton: Yeah, Todd told us that the cost of the trail, we'd build it but we'd be reimbursed for it. The cost of building it. Aanenson: But our issue with the bridge is that's a way to mitigate any wetland impacts so I'm not sure if that nexus goes to the trail issue or if that goes to our issue of trying to preserve that wetland with impacts so I'm not sure. We'll have to strike a balance on that, if that makes sense. Lillehaug: How would you suggest addressing that right now I guess. Aanenson: Well our feeling was, instead of impacting the wetland bridge, it just so happens it makes a nice amenity for the trail. Should they be compensated for that? I don't know. I'm not sure. i think that's something I'd like to discuss with them so, and talk to Todd about and Lori. Try to look at what type of structure. You know we've just talked about it today, or yesterday for the first time... Lillehaug: Thank you. Blackowiak: Alright, this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to comment on this issue. Had a couple over there, I think they gave up on tlS. Seeing no one, I will close public hearing. And now's tile time for comments. Rich, wily don't you start. Slagle: I'll start. But before 1 start, I'll have one quick question and again, I've got to get better at writing my questions. I apologize Kate, but did you sa3' to me that the applicant did have a meeting with Longacres? AanellSOll: Yes. Slagle: Tile neighbors in Longacres and literally no one's here. Aanenson: I did talk to Cotmcihnan Steve Labatt. He was at that meeting. Tile Cohoon's who have left tile meeting. Slagle: Live in Longacres, okay. Aanenson: Co~Tect, they're Longacres. And spoke to them. Showed them the plans. They have seen it. They were here. Other than that they said that they didn't have a turn out, but Steve has talked to a number of his neighbors too. 5l Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002 Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. Alright, my comments. This is the first proposal I have seen since I have been on this commission that is of this magnitude. I was not part of Ashling Meadows. I was not part of Pulte. You can go on and on. And I have to tell you, as a commissioner, this is a lot to handle and there's a lot of questions that have come up today and I'm faced with one major issue and that is the trail, and obviously I'm sure Mr. Hoffman, knowing him like I do, has some good reasons why he suggested or discussed what they had discussed. But I would like to hear those and so I will share with you now that I am not prepared to vote one way or another on this. Not just because of the trail, but because of the trees. There's some questions on noise. It's not a huge issue on my end, but I think there's more that I would like to see staff get back to us with and then vote on it in a future meeting. Might be the next one, or the next one, but just being honest. There's a lot of here. It's a huge project and in the course of an hour and a half, 2 hours I don't know if I could vote on it. So that's my thoughts. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Well you heard from my questions a little bit where I stand. My main issue is the trees. I considered this big trees, and I'm talking not about the boxelders. I'm talking about these oaks and basswoods and ashes between 30 and 40 inch caliper. That's big trees. I consider those a city treasure. There are very few areas, if any left in this city that has that amount of huge trees and even the ones between 20 and 30 inches are significant, and there are a lot of those that I didn't even look at at this point yet. I feel that, no I don't feel. That's a bad thing up here. I'm very clear that this has not been looked at sufficiently. There are options, as staff said in the staff report, to eliminate some of those lots and I'm talking about these 29 through 33, or at least 29 through 32 of Block 1. To remove the lots and replace the units with twin homes elsewhere. Well the elsewhere, we have a problem with the framework but we haven't really explored different frameworks. Convert these units to twin. I mean it's mentioned in the staff report but it hasn't really explored further. Swapping the neighborhood park. Well from where I'm coming from, those trees are more important than a swimming pool. I know that's just not the vision that you have with this development, but I think from a city viewpoint that could be a very defendable position to take. Whether PUD helps or part of it would have to be zoned dense or maybe that, I mean those are options to look at. Even with the addition, I appreciate your effort, and don't misunderstand me. I think this is a great project and I want to commend you for bringing such a good project in front of us but I do have to agree with Commissioner Slagle that I can't really support it with, these questions go too deep. The one with the tree. The one with the trail. They go too deep that I am inclined to support this project enough. Now the extension that you recommended off the no grading zone, does just about double the tree you save. I mean in terms of the ones I looked at. The ones that I counted. The 30 to 40 inch oaks, basswoods, and ashes in that particular area. It increases it from 2 to 3 to 4 to 6, so basically from 10 percent we go up to 20 percent of these major trees being saved, but I think it would be reasonable from a city viewpoint to ask that 2/3 of these trees get saved. And then if you have to do a give and take, I think certainly half of those trees should be preserved. In some way or other. Now based on that, to wrap up where I stand with my comments, in the rezoning finding, one of the things you have to look at is preservation of desirable site characteristics, protection of sensitive environmental features including mature trees and others. Well, we don't get enough of that. We do not get enough of that that I can support this rezoning application. With the preliminary plat we have finding number 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including several things including vegetation, are suitable for the proposed development. Well in general that's true. It's going to be a wonderful development. A great setting but we have not enough preservation of the significant feature of those trees. Then again, still under the preliminary plat findings number 5, the proposed subdivision will not cause enviromnental damage. The finding of staff is the proposed subdivision indeed will not cause environmental damage, subject to conditions of this 52 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 report. While saving 10 or possibly 20 percent of those significant trees in that particular area where we have hardwoods, of that size, to me that's significant environmental damage so I can't support that. With the conditional use permit, it will not change the essential character of the area. Finding number 3. Well it totally changes the character, the essential character of the area. Now I have to commend you guys, meaning Lundgren Brothers Builders, you have a very smooth way to do this in phases so it doesn't get noticed all that much but in the end those trees are going to be gone, and so the end effect to me is not acceptable with that. It will not result in the destruction or loss or damage of several things including natural features of major significance. Those trees are of major significance to me for the city. And that is my comments. So at this point where I stand, I'd like to table this and have these issues furthered researched. Thank you. Sidney: Goodness, quite a list. Slagle: You need a drink of water? Sacchet: Deep breath will do. Sidney: Well I must say you said succinctly what I want to say, and I appreciate that so I don't have to say it. But it's unfortunate, I guess I feel like, you know I wish this had come in as a PUD. That we would have a concept plan to look at and maybe some of the issues that the commissioners are talking about, we would have had a chance to talk with Lundgren Brothers earlier on this. Of course that is not the scenario that we're dealing with here. But I think it is significant that we have some trees that we'd like to save that it's important to the community that we try to do that. We have issues with homes very close to a major highway and I think just dealing with the noise issue is going to be a concern. The trails, have we done the best job that we can with the trail system? What are the options in this development? Can we have more twin homes and increase lot sizes? And I just get tile feeling like we're not quite there with this development. There are too many questions. We have a lot of impact to the wetlands. Or I shouldn't say that. We're dealing with wetland issues. We're dealing with significant trees. I think we need more information about that. I don't want to really try and create a, well wouldn't like to have a more density at the expense of trees and I see this to be the way that a lot of subdivisions go. I think if we can be more sensitive to some of the tree issues, I think we'd be better off. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay. thank you. Bruce. Feik: Sure. I'm not comfortable with it for some different reasons. Some tile same, but some different as well so I'll only discuss the ones that differ from the comments currently out there. Part of it is, I'm not comfortable with the trail system in general. I would much, strongly prefer to have the trail coming down both the east, southeasterly direction as well as the west side as was targeted by the original Chanhassen trail goals. 1 would consider, I think Kate had said something about up-zoning it to accomplish some of the things I think the city would like. One of the concerns I have on this is, I don't think it is a very, I'm not sure how to say this. I'm not trying to say it in a discouraging manner at all. It's not a very welcoming development for the rest of Chanhassen. We stub a trail into it, but really not the feeling that the community can ride through it. I would normally have expected maybe a stubbed road going to the east to the Pryzmus property to allow that to be developed in concert with this, like we've seen in a number of other projects. That is not that large of a site over there and I think that would seemed to it would make more sense fi'om what some of the other things we've seen. So I guess I'm not real comfortable with it today. As I sit here I keep asking myself more and more questions, and not getting them answered. 53 Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Steve. Lillehaug: I think you did a very good job on addressing all the wetland issues. I mean it's very commendable to throw a large development in like this and have to do minimal wetland mitigation and basically all the other issues, with an exception to the trees. I just don't think there's enough big tree preservation and it's a key concern. I also have concerns that you did follow guidelines from staff, as far as the alignment of this trail. But I don't want to, I want to try to streamline the review process here but I don't want to compromise the better for the development so I don't want to compromise anything on the development here. I'd like to streamline this but I agree with the fellow commissioners that this isn't what we want to see at this point. Blackowiak: Okay. My comments are, have pretty much all been taken. There are some major issues and I think you've heard them and I would certainly encourage you to check the minutes and look at our biggies but they would look to be trails, noise, trees. I mean and we need to see this back. We need to see how it's going to happen and I, Bruce thank you for bringing up the connection to the east because I never even thought of that. How do we stub in? How do we plan ahead because we try to pride ourselves in doing a good job and looking at the big picture and see how things are going to fit. I mean this commercial is a perfect example of that where we try to think okay, we've got the Pulte commercial. We need to tie in this next parcel and check accesses and things like that. We usually do a pretty good job and until you said that I didn't realize that we'd kind of been forgetting what's to the east so good catch. I just think there are a lot of issues that need to be resolved and we do need to see this back so based on that I would like somebody to make a motion. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make the motion that we table this. Blackowiak: Is there a second? Feik: Second. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for Vasserman Ridge, located on the north side of Highway 5 and northeast of Century Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. Blackowiak: This item is tabled, it will be put on the next available Planning Commission agenda after things are worked out. Okay, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM USE PERMIT #2000-2~ MISS ROSIE'S FARM~ REVISING THE SITE PLAN WITH A VARIANCE FOR A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED AT 7461 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD ON PROPERTY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE~ SUSAN MCALLISTER. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item, Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, in an effort to kind of move things along, if you'd like to speak just give me a signal. Uli, questions. 54 CITY OF P.C. DATE: 6-18-02 C.C. DATE: 7-22-02 Review deadline 9-3-02 CASE: 2002-2 PUD J n. STAFF REPORT VRGPO§AL. a. Comprehensive Land Use Amendment- from low density residential to commercial for 1.94 acres of land. b. Rezoning of 68.75 acres of land from A2 Agricultural to PUD Commercial (1.94 acres) and R-4 (66.82 acres) c. Subdivision - 68.76 acres into 84 residential lots, 1 commercial lot, and 6 outlots d. Wetland Alteration Permit - 2,120 square feet (0.5 acres) e. Conditional Use Permit - for subdivision within the Bluff Creek Overlay District LOCATION: North of Hwy. 5 between Century Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard AI'PLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 Ld PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate ACREAGE: 68.76 Acres-Gross 32.15 acres-Net DENSITY: 1.27 u/acre gross 2.29 u/acre net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Lundgren Brothers is requesting a land use amendment and a rezoning to allow a low-density residential development and neighborhood commercial zoning. This prqject will also require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow for the commercial use, a rezoning fi'om A-2 to R-4 and PUD - Commercial, preliminary plat for 5 outlots, 84 lots and a private park, a wetland alteration permit and a conditional use permit for a subdivision within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 2 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezoning, PUD's and amendments to the PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policymaking capacity. A rezoning or PUD and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The city's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSAL SUMMARY Lundgren Brothers is requesting to rezone 68.76 acres of property located north of Hwy. 5 between Hwy. 41 and Galpin Boulevard. There are two underlying properties, the American Baptist Church and Outlot K of the Longacres subdivision. The subject site is currently zoned A2, Agricultural Estate. In the 199l Comprehensive Plan, this area was given a Study Area status. It was guided as a part of the Highway 5 Corridor study in 1995. The land use considerations for this site are low density residential. This area was brought into the MUSA in 2000; this is consistent with the city comprehensive plan. The site will be accessed via the Hwy. 5 frontage road (West 78th Street). This request proposes an R-4 zoning to accommodate twin and single-family homes and PUD commercial on a 1.94-acre parcel. A small wetland is being filled to accommodate a street. Wetland mitigation is being proposed on site. A conditional use is being requested to build within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions as proposed in the staff report. BACKGROUND The majority of the site has been farmed. There is a large wetland to the north and western edge of the site. The total amount of wetlands for the entire site is 23.20 acres. The site has a rolling topography with a 30-foot change from the wetlands to the highest point. There is a home with out buildings that sits on the underlying 10 parcel (the American Baptist Group Home). The group home has informed the city that it is their intention to relocate to a new site. The home will remain on the site for approximately a year. This group homes has a conditional use. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 3 To the west of the subject site is Arboretum Village, which is currently under construction. This property is zoned PUD with a net density of 5.7 units an acre. To the east of this site is 14 acres (6 and 8 acres) on either side of West 78th Street. This property is guided for low-density development up to 4 units an acre. The development of this site is being influenced by several important policies. These policies include the Highway 5 Corridor Study, the Bluff Creek Overlay District, the Comprehensive Plan and the City's Zoning Ordinance. Following is a summary of each of these documents and its influence on the design of the subject site. Highway 5 Corridor Study The purpose of the TH 5 study was to select a preferred alignment for the northerly frontage road, to review land use and zoning alternatives along the corridor, and provide design guidelines. The purpose of the Overlay District as stated in the ordinance is to "be designed with greater sensitivity to the environment and of generally higher quality." The purpose of the district is to: a. "Protect creek corridors, wetland and significant stands of mature trees... b. Promotes high quality architectural and site design... c. Create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment... d. Foster a distinctive and positive community image...especially for the Highway 5 corridor which functions as the City's main entrance." The study proposed that the area be given a land use designation of single family residential. The R-4 zoning district is consistent with the low density. The mix of twin homes and single-family homes provides a transition fi'om the surrounding uses. Bluff Creek Overlay District The Bluff Creek Corridor Study is a vision and planning document that has the following goals: 1. Protection, Restoration and Enhancement of Natural Resources 2. Acquire land to create a continuous greenway along the creek from the Minnesota River to Lake Minnewashta 3. Create development standards that manage upstream such as mixed or cluster development easements and alternative zoning 4. Develop educational watershed awareness program 5. Develop a Natural Resources Plan An overlay district was created for Bluff Creek with a primary and secondary corridor. The primary corridor boundary delineates a conservancy zone where undisturbed conditions are desired. This is the area where any type of development and/or human activity directly impacts the morphological and biological characteristics of Bluff Creek. The secondary corridor boundary delineates a management zone. This is the area where development and/or urban Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 4 activities directly affect the stream's upland ecosystem. The preservation and enhancement of this area will result in a better habitat and less strain on the stream. Management practices for this area focus on the preservation and enhancement of upland vegetation and the reduction of peak flows. A portion of this site falls within the primary and secondary zone. The primary zone is the eastern and northern edge of the wetland. The secondary zone is the edge of the wetland buffer. The City's Bluff Creek Overlay District states that no development shall occur within the primary zone. A conservation easement is being proposed on Lots 24 and 25 22 through 32 of Block 2 to preserve a stand of trees. Outlot F (the upland portion) will be dedicated to the city for parkland. The Bluff Creek Plan makes a couple of recommendations for this area including restoring the shallow marsh and restoring the big woods. The city has tried in the past to work on the restoration of the shallow marsh but received neighborhood resistance. The big woods restoration is being considered with the Arboretum Village and Outlot F uplands area. A walking bridge is also being considered for access to this area to limit wetland impacts. Homes that are located in the wooded area will be custom graded. While the bridge is a part of the trail the bridge is necessary to avoid the wetland. Therefore the bridge will not be compensated as a part of the trial but rather a requirement for wetland mitigation. The most wooded area in the development is in the area of Lots 27-34 of Block 1. The placement of single family homes in this area probably has the most long term impact to the trees because of individual home owners who have different wants for their property. It would be desirable to preserve this area of trees. One way would be to eliminate the lots or to remove the lot and replace the units with twin homes elsewhere or convert these units to twin. Twin homes by their nature are less likely to make significant changes to the unit or the lot. This issue is discussed further in the landscaping section. Highway 5 Frontage Boulevard Much of the topography and the shape of the parcels are being driven by the location, necessary grading and construction of West 78th Street. The design of the road was also approved as a part of the Hwy. 5 corridor. The road is intended to be a boulevard with streetscape, lighting and a trail on the north. The construction of the road is necessary for this site to development. Access to this proposal will be from West 78th street. Planned Unit Development The applicant is seeking a PUD with a Comprehensive Plan amendment in order to develop a 1.94 acre parcel that is adjacent to the Pulte 2.94 acres of commercial zoning which is between Hwy. 5 and West 78th Street. The plan incorporates good planning principles by combining both parcels. Both parcels will be developed together. Full access to this site will be via the "Lundgren Parcel" because the Pulte parcel is limited to right-in and right-out only. The design Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 5 standards for the Pulte commercial piece will be applied to the Lundgren parcel. Staff has pointed out these issues during the Pulte proposal. ANALYSIS Lundgren Brothers is requesting: 1. Preliminary Subdivision approval 2. Land Use Amendment of 1.94 acres 3. Rezoning from A-2 to R-4 and PUD-Commercial 4. Wetland Alteration Permit 5. Conditional Use PUD Rezoning (commercial) The following review constitutes an evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria are taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent "Planned unit developments eft'er enhanced flexibili(v to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal tran,~fer of densi~. , construction phasing, and a potential,{br lower development costs, bt exchange fi;r this enhanced.flexibility, the Ci0' has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other ,tore standard zoning districts." Because the h'ontage road left a 1.94-acre remnant parcel, staff has always recommended that this property be developed with the commercial property in the Arboretum Village. The design standards being recommended are those approved with the Pulte project. The Pulte parcel is 2.94 acres so with the Lundgren parcel this site would be 4.88 acres. Following are the Design Standards approved for the Arboretum Village project that staff is recommending for the Lundgren Parcel. PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial/mixed density- housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. A specific lighting and sign plan shall be submitted prior to final plat. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 6 b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurant (no drive-thru windows), office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. No single use shall exceed 5,000 square feet. c. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Setback Required Minimum Proposed From Collector Street 50 feet 50 feet From Exterior Lot Lines 30 feet 30 feet Interior Public Right-of-Way 30 feet 60 feet }lard Surface Commercial 70% Not available at this time d. Building Materials and Design COMMERCIAL 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Brick shall be used as the principal material and must be approved to assure uniformity with the residential uses. 2. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials. 3. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 4. All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs. Wood screen fences arc prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 5. All buildings on the commercial site shall have a pitched roof line. 6. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. Preliminary Plat - Subdivision The entire property is 68.76 acres. The proposed subdivision includes: 1.94 acres of commercial, 38 twin home lots, and 46 single-family lots. Homeowners Association lot (1.02), 23.59 acres of wetland and 5 outlots (entrance monuments). Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 7 The developer conducted a noise study to "establish anticipated traffic noise with the residential development." The conclusion of the noise study is that "... predicted traffic noise levels are likely to be higher than the residential nighttime noise standards, an exception in the Minnesota rules permits the noise standards for commercial land use to be applied when home construction meets the requirements of these rules. Therefore based upon the analysis performed in the study, predicted traffic noise levels will be at or lower than levels contained in the state noise standards for residential land use." The noise mitigation is being utilized in with the construction of the new homes and the berm that runs the length of West 78th Street along the north side. The R-4 zoning district allows for single and twin homes. The minimum lot size for twin homes is 10,000 square feet per lot with 50 feet of frontage. The requirements for single family are 15,000 square foot minimum with an 80-foot lot width. The setbacks for both the twin and single-family homes are 30 feet in the front and back with 10 feet on the side yard. The single- family homes have a building pad of 70 x 60 feet and the twin homes have a building pad of 70 x 80 feet. The proposed subdivision of the property is consistent with the guidelines established in the ehe si plan and zoning ordinance compr n ve. The plat has been revised and all lots meet the lot width and area requirements. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat be approved with conditions outlined in the repom Based on the buildable area some of the lots are without area for expansion in the rear yard because of the wetland buffer. Staff is recommending that home plans be sensitive to the buildable area and the covenants state these homes do not have the ability to expand to the rear. There are mills and sidewalks through the subdivision. The subdivision does have a private park. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 8 COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot / Block Square Feet Lot / Block Square Feet Block 1 Block 2 1 20,743 1 11,457 2 10,229 b 2 12,205 3 10,677 -b 3 10,317 4 9,026 a 4 10,474 5 10,150 5 12,273 6 10,675 6 13,985 7 11,379 7 15,889 8 10,378 8 21,199 9 12,037 9 18,595 10 8,606 a 10 11,111 e 11 12,017 11 18,511 c 12 9,875 a 12 16,509 c 13 9,712 a-la- 13 15,521 c 14 13,896 14 16,851 15 11,535 15 22,210 16 13,904 16 20,164 17 16,446 17 20,554 18 38,306 18 26,667 19 16,697 19 24,226 20 14,707 20 22,533 21 23,878 21 21,057 22 25,360 22 20,699 d e 23 21,659 23 20,249 d e 24 15,962 24 26,396 d, e 25 13,776 25 53,331 d e 26 12,107 26 32,169 d e 27 12,854 27 22,920 d e 28 10,227 28 19,476 d e 29 21,853 d e 29 19,919 d e 30 17,740 d e 30 18,412 d e 31 18,662 d e 31 17,724 d e 32 19,293 d e 32 17,451 d e 33 17,723 d e 33 48,101 d e 34 18,938 d e 34 44,157 d 35 19,326 35 28,980 36 22,524 37 38,461 Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 9 Lot / Block Square Feet Lot / Block Square Feet Block 3 Block 4 84,695 1 42,146 2 15,008 Outlot A 808 3 15,053 4 15,074 Outlot B 800 5 17,887 6 19,328 Outlot C 6,440 7 15,645 8 15,130 Outlot D 787 9 16,643 10 17,249 Outlot E 795 11 16,115 12 15,679 Outlot F 1,026,522 13 15,O95 c. Has minimum rear yard d. Custom graded lots e. Conservation easements Landscaping and Tree Preservation The applicant for thc Vasscrman Ridge dcvclopmcnt has submitted tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 40.84 ac. 29% or 11.63 ac. 30% or 12.25 ac. 11% or 4.57 ac. The applicant does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 7.06 ac. 1.2 8.5 ac. or 370,260 SF 340 trees Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 10 In addition, the applicant must increase canopy coverage to meet the minimum thirty percent required. The calculations are follows: Total reforestation area (12.25- 11.63 ac.) .62 ac. or 27,007 SF Required canopy coverage 25 trees (one tree provides 1,089 SF of canopy) The total number of trees required for the development is 365. Applicant has proposed a total of 307 trees. An additional 58 trees must be added to the landscape plan. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. Buffer uirements are as shown in the table: Buffer yard B - South property line 1700', 30' width, berm Buffer yard B - South property line 200', 30' width, no berm 17 overstory trees 17 understory trees 51 shrubs 2 overstory trees 4 understory trees 6 shrubs 32 overstory trees 21 understory trees 57 shrubs 4 overstory trees 0 understory trees 5 shrubs The applicant meets total minimum requirements for buffer yard plantings. The buffer yard table is split, even though it's the same area, because the applicant is installing a large berm along most of the area. According to ordinance, when a berm three feet or higher is incorporated into a buffer yard, understory and shrub plantings may be reduced by half. The applicant has done so in this case. Due to the installation of the BC 7 and 8 sewer line, a large number of trees were replanted the fall of 2001 within the easement that runs along the north end of the property. This easement fall within the grading area for Vasserman Ridge so the trees will be removed. Staff recommends that the developer be responsible for replacing each of the trees removed. Staff will inventory the area prior to grading. Wooded areas on site differ in quality and species. Along the wetland areas, wooded areas are dominated by boxelder, elm, poplar, and willow. A wooded knoll exists within the area of lots 29-34, block 1 with a mix of oak, basswood, ash, boxelder and elm. In this area are twenty-five oaks and basswoods measuring 30 - 42 inches in diameter and one 40-inch ash. After initial site. ..... ~, ~ .... , ..... , ~. ,~. ~._~u ...;,, ~. ,~ .......... *;~ ~2 3 ~r,~= · .... The plans have been revised to preserve more trees through the revision in home styles and grading. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 11 WETLANDS Existing Wetlands Four wetland basins exist on-site: three ag/urban wetlands and one natural wetland. The wetland in the northeast portion of the property (Basin 1) is an ag/urban Type 2 wetland that is a part of the headwaters of Bluff Creek. Basin 1 is dominated by reed canary grass. Basin 2 is a large ag-urban Type 2 wetland along the northern property line that is also part of the headwaters of Bluff Creek and dominated by reed canary grass. The westernmost wetland (Basin 3) is a natural Type 3 wetland. Basin 3 is dominated by reed canary grass and supports a large population of cattails. All three wetlands are within the Primary Corridor of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. A fourth wetland (Basin 4) is a Type 2 ag/urban wetland. The applicant is proposing to fill Basin 4 to accommodate the alignment of "A Street." The total proposed impact to Basin 4 is 2,120 square feet (0.05 acres). Basins 2 and 3 are connected by a swale that flows to the northwest from Basin 3 to Basin 2. The applicant is proposing 470 square feet of wetland fill to accommodate the trail connection to Arboretum Village to the west. The applicant should install a bridge over the swale between Basins 2 and 3 to avoid wetland impacts and enhance the aesthetics of this area. Wetland Replacement Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant should submit a wetland alteration permit application. Prior to wetland impacts occurring, the applicant shall obtain City approval of a wetland replacement plan. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan should be submitted. The plans should show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetlands. The applicant should provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. Wetland impacts must be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio. The applicant is proposing on-site mitigation for wetland impacts. Two areas of wetland construction (new wetland credit) are proposed in the northeast portion of the property. The areas of new wetland credit (NWC) total 2,400 square feet. It is unclear how the remaining 1,840 square feet of required mitigation will be accomplished. The wetland alteration permit application should demonstrate how 2:1 wetland mitigation will be completed. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) must be maintained around Basins 1, 3 and the wetland mitigation areas. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) must be maintained around Basin 2. (Those buffers Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 12 considered for Public Value Credit (PVC) under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) must maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All proposed trails and trail easements must be located outside of the wetland buffer area. The grading and erosion control plan should show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40-foot wetland buffer setback. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. It appears that Lots 11, 12 and 13 of Block 2 will not be able to accommodate decks, porches or other accessory structures outside of the 60 x 70 building pad shown on the plans due to wetland buffer and setback requirements. Structures on these lots should be designed to accommodate decks or other accessory structures within the 60 x 70 building pad or the lots should be reconfigured to provide more flexibility. Surface Water Management Storm Water Management The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. On-site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all City water quality and quantity standards. Easements Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. A drainage and utility easement should be provided over the 20 feet directly adjacent to the normal water level (NWL) on NURP Pond A in order to accommodate future pond maintenance. A drainage and utility easement should also be provided over the proposcd emergency overflow for NURP Pond A. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $800/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 43.23 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $34,584. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 13 family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $85,595 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of two NURP ponds. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $120,179. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. GRADING The existing site is bordered by wetlands along the west, north and east property lines. The new West 78th Street runs along the southern property line. The site is also outlined by groves of significant trees, along with a section of trees that extends toward the center of the site from the west. In addition, there are four existing buildings on the property which will have to be razed prior to any grading operations. The existing well and septic systems must be capped and/or removed in compliance with State health codes. In an effort to save as many of the significant trees on the site as possible, the applicant has revised the grading plan to raise the intersection of street A and street C. This will enable the developer to custom grade five additional lots around this street intersection. There are custo,'n grade 12 cf tee lots in the west-central and northwest portion of the site that are proposed to be custom graded. Staff agrees that this is the most environmentally sensitive way to develop these lots. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for City review and approval. In addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy. Significant site grading will be needed to prepare the site for home construction. The developer intends to grade the site in phases over one to two years. As part of the grading operations, large berms (10'-20' tall) are proposed along the south property line of the site to buffer the development fi'om West 78th Street and associated noise. This is necessary due to the lack of noise abatement with the Highway 5 project. West 78th Street is cun'ently a MnDOT road and, as such, MnDOT will have to review and approve the grading plan. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 14 As a whole, the grading plan is well designed. There are a few spots, however, where minor adjustments will have to be made during final design. For example, there are two proposed homes whose rear yard elevations are not three feet above the HWL of the adjacent pond. Lot 37, along the east side of "C" street and the twin home across Lots 1 and 2 on the east side of "A" street do not meet the requirement and must be revised. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. DRAINAGE The north half of the existing site drains to the large ag/urban wetland along the northern property line. The westerly most portion of the site drains to the existing natural wetland along the west property line. The remaining southerly portion of the property drains to West 78th Street and eventually a MnDOT storm pond. The proposed grading plan has been designed to match the existing drainage patterns fairly well. The north and eastern portions of the site drain to a proposed pond in the southeast comer of the site. The pond will treat the water before discharging it to the adjacent wetland. The remainder of the site north of West 78th Street will drain to a pond in the south-central portion of the site and discharge to the MnDOT storm sewer system. The ponds are both required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The proposed drainage plan is consistent with the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). According to the project narrative, the applicant intends to drain the commercial parcel to the existing MnDOT pond on the south side of West 78th Street. This would require that the pond be enlarged to handle the additional runoff from the commercial site. Without MnDOT approval on the enlargement of the existing pond, the applicant will be required to provide a separate, on- site pond. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site but some revisions are needed. Staff will work with the engineer to correct the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at that time. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access routes for maintenance, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the construction plans. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 15 EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type HI erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the existing wetlands on the north, east and west grading limits of the site. Type 1I silt fence shall be used in all other areas. A rock construction entrance must be shown at the entrance drive that will be utilized during construction. In addition, wood-fiber blankets will be required on the steep slopes of the proposed berms and off the west side of the "D" street cul-de-sac. UTILITIES Currently, public sanitary sewer runs along the wetland on the north side of the site. The plans propose on connecting to this sewer line and extending it to serve the site. This is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan. If the commercial lot does not develop with the adjacent lot to the west, a sanitary sewer service will have to be provided by this development. Municipal water is available to the site from West 78th Street. There are two existing water stubs to the property which the applicant will connect to. The plans propose on looping the watermain through the site. If the commercial lot does not develop with the adjacent lot to the west, a water service will have to be provided by this development. In conjunction with the BC-7/BC-8 pro. ject and the Trunk Highway 5 reconstruction project, the two underlying parcels of the property were subject to special assessments. The total remaining assessment due payable to the City for the BC-7/BC-8 Trunk Utility Project is g, ggx400 $77,350 for sanitary sewer. The total remaining assessment due payable to the City for the Trunk Highway 5 Project is ~t4g-,744 $112,651 for watermain. The assessments for the BC-7/BC-8 project were based on the existing zoning for the site yielding a developed total of 68 units. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (84 + 3 units for the commercial lot) than what the property has been assessed for, the additional 19 units (87 - 68=19) will be charged a sanitary sewer lateral connection charge. The assessments for the Highway 5 project, based on existing zoning, yielded a developed total of 76 units. As above, since more units are now being proposed than what was assessed for (87 vs. 76), the additional 11 units will be charged a watermain lateral connection charge. The current 2002 lateral connection charge for sanitary or water is $4,335 per unit. Based on the current rate, the total amount due payable to the City for the additional 30 units would be $130,050 (30 @ $4,335). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hook tip charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. Hook-up charges are for core utility system infrastructure, i.e. wells, lift stations, water towers, etc. Connection fees are in lieu of assessments which were absorbed by the City instead of being levied at the time of construction. In this case, more units are proposed to be constructed than originally anticipated. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 16 Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at time of final platting. Additional manholes and/or valves may be required at that time. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required prior to construction, including but not limited to MPCA, Department of Health, MnDOT, Watershed District, etc. STREETS Overall, the proposed street layout appears to work well. The entire street system is shown within a 60-foot wide public right-of-way with 31-foot wide streets in accordance with City design criteria. Sidewalk is proposed on one side of all the through streets. This sidewalk will connect with the existing trail along West 78th Street and with the proposed trail along the north side of the property. Each of the two cul-de-sacs along with the street entrances to the site contain a landscaped "island" in the center. These islands will be encircled by curb and gutter and maintained by the development's homeowners association. The City has allowed similar islands in the past and staff would recommend only that the configuration be acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. Encroachment agreements will also be required for the islands within the right-of-way. In addition, the applicant should be aware that the maximum allowable street grade is 7%. Areas with a street grade greater than 7% must be revised to meet the criteria. Access to the commercial lot shall be via a shared driveway with the neighboring commercial lot to the west. The access will be located just east of the median on West 78th Street. This is consistent with the final plat staff report for the parcel to the west (Arboretum Village). The access issue and others will be addressed in further detail during the site plan review process on the commercial lot. BUILDING INSPECTIONS AND FIRE MARSHAL COMMENTS The Building Official has reviewed the plans and has the following comments: 1. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. 2. All on-site sewage treatment systems must be abandoned in accordance with City Code. 3. Prior to permit submittals, the developer shall meet with the Inspections Division to discuss the design and construction of the twin homes. 4. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The plan review is based on the available Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 17 information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3. 3. In the cul-de-sacs with the center island "no parking" signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen City Fire Marshal for additional information. 4. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees or shrubs must be either removed from site or chipped. 5. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 6. Submit cul-de-sac to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Additional fire hydrants will be required. One will be required at the intersection of "A" Street and "B" Street; one will be required between lots 23 and 24, and an additional hydrant will be required at thc intersection of "C" Street and West 75th Street Frontage Road. PARK AND TRAILS The Park and Recreation Director has reviewed the aforementioned submittal and recommend the following conditions of approval regarding parks and trails. The applicant shall be required to build the "wetland" trail between Lots 18 and 19 and in the rear of Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. This trail shall be 8 feet wide and constructed from bituminous pavement per City standard specifications. The trail shall be connected with the existing trail, which terminates at Lot 13 of The Meadows at Longacres. A permanent 20-foot wide trail easement shall be described by the applicant generally centered on the new trail and granted to the City to allow the maintenance and upkeep of this public trail. The applicant is eligible for reimbursement of the construction costs of said trail, including materials and labor, but excluding engineering, Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 18 surveying, legal and all other associated costs. To be eligible for reimbursement from the city's trail fund the applicant shall submit construction plans and specifications and construction costs to the City 45 or more days prior to the start of construction for review and authorization. Assuming authorization to proceed is received and upon completion of construction, the applicant shall be eligible for reimbursement. Said construction shall be covered by warranties equal to or exceeding industry standards. The City shall accept the small upland portion of Outlot F in the northwest comer of the project as parkland dedication assuming all of Outlot F is transferred into public ownership. The dollar amount of this credit will be calculated per City ordinance. 3. All remaining Park and Trail fees be collected per City ordinance. LAND USE PLAN FINDINGS The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential Low Density, with the land use amendment for the 1.94 acres of commercial. The legal description of the property is: see attached Exhibit A. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. Specific policies include: Land Use Goals - The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide for a full range of house opportunities; the city will encourage the development of neighborhood service centers where appropriate. These will be developed as a part of mixed use development or PUD; and the city will seek to provide transitions between different uses of different types; and Housing policies -; the development of alternative types of housing such as patio homes, townhouses, and quadplexes should be permitted to supplement conventional single-family homes and apartments provided that they are compatible with appropriate land use practices and are representative of high quality development; housing development methods such as PUD's, cluster development, and innovative site plans and building types, should be encouraged to help conserve energy and resources used for housing, and the city will promote the mixing of housing densities within a project in order to provide-a wide range of housing styles and types. b. The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 19 e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. The planning report PUD #2002-2 dated June 13, 2001, prepared by Kate Aanenson is incorporated herein. REZONING FINDINGS It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. There are areas of trees are being preserved with the application of custom graded lots and conservation easements. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. Within the R-4 zoning district there are 15,000 and 10,000 square foot lots. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Common open space as xvell as buildings will be maintained. Finding. The development will incorporate high quality design and design compatible with SmTounding land uses. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant CO~Tidors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. There will be a berm to mitigate the impact of Hwy. 5 and West 78th Street and the design of the units should help mitigate the noise. 5. Development, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 20 Finding. The Ro4 zoning district is consistent with the comprehensive plan. A land use amendment is required for the commercial zoning. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Finding. There is a private park in the subdivision with sidewalk connected the neighborhood. There is a trail that rums along the wetland to the north and connects to Arboretum Village. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. Not applicable with the application. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. There will be a berm to mitigate the impact of Hwy. 5 and West 78th Street and the design of the units should help mitigate the noise. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. Access to the site is via West 78th Street, a collector. The commercial drive will be via a joint driveway. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets the intent of the city code subject to the conditions of the staff report. 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, subject to the conditions of the staff report. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 21 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 physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed development subject to the conditions specified in this report. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infl'astructure contingent upon conditions specified in this report. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions in this report. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of records. Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infrastructure contingent upon conditions specified in this report. Additional easements will be required as part of the subdivision. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lake of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of dedicated and improved public streets. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems and not 1STS (individual sewer treatment system). d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infi-astructure. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS In addition, a conditional use permit is required prior to the construction of any structure within the Bluff Creek Overlay district. The Planning Commission shall recommend a conditional use Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 22 permit and the council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: 1. Will not be detrimental to or damage the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood of the city. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. o Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and condition of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property that do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or sut~'ounding public thoroughfares. 9. Will not result in thc destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Findings: The area defined within the primary zone is being slated for preservation. Staff is recommending that a drainage and utility easement be placed over the wetland and buffer and a conservation easement be placed over the trees in Lots ~ 22-32 of Block 2 and Lots 29- 32, Block 1. Because development is outside of the primary zone mitigation is not required. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 23 RECOMMENDATIONS Land Use And Rezoning Recommendation "The Planning Commission recommends approval of a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment from Iow density to commercial for 1.94 acres of property; and approve the ordinance for a Planned Unit Development rezoning property from Agricultural Estate, A2 to Mixed Low Density Residential, R-4, subject to the findings of the staff report and the following conditions: 1. Approve design standards for the 1.94 acres of commercial and zoning for the PUD 1. Conditions of the subdivision 2. Conditions of the Wetland and Conditional Use permit 3. Approval of the Metropolitan Council for the Land Use Amendment Subdivision 2002-02 PUD Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat for Vasserman Ridge, including 84 residential lots, 1 commercial lot, and 6 outlots as shown on plans dated June -7 24, 2002 and subject to the findings of the staff report and the following conditions: Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for City review and approval. In addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy. If importing or exporting material for development of tile site is necessary, tile applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. Each of the ponds shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The existing well and septic systems must be capped and/or removed in compliance with State health codes. 5. Staff will work with the engineer to correct the drainage calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at that time. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access routes for maintenance, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 24 will also be required on the construction plans. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the existing wetlands on the north, east and west grading limits of the site. Type II silt fence shall be used in all other areas. A rock construction entrance must be shown at the entrance drive that will be utilized during construction. In addition, wood- fiber blankets will be required on the steep slopes of the proposed berms and off the west side of the "D" street cul-de-sac. Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at time of final platting. Additional manholes and/or valves may be required at that time. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required prior to construction, including but not limited to MPCA, Department of Health, MnDOT, Watershed District, etc. The assessments for the BC-7/BC-8 project were based on the existing zoning for the site yielding a developed total of 68 units. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (84 + 3 units for the commercial lot) than what the property has been assessed for, the additional 19 units (87 - 68=19) will be charged a sanitary sewer lateral connection charge. The assessments for the Highway 5 project, based on existing zoning, yielded a developed total of 76 units. As above, since more units are now being proposed than what was assessed for (87 vs. 76), the additional 11 units will be charged a watermain lateral connection charge. The current 2002 lateral connection charge for sanitary or water is $4,335 per unit. Based on the cun'ent rate, the total amount due payable to the City for the additional 30 units would be $130,050 (30 @ $4,335). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hook up charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. Hook-up charges are for core utility system infrastructure, i.e. wells, lift stations, water towers, etc. Connection fees are in lieu of assessments which were absorbed by the City instead of being levied at the time of construction. In this case, more units are proposed to be constructed than originally anticipated. 10. The total remaining assessment due payable to the City for the BC-8/BC-8 Trunk Utility Project is Sgg;400 $77,350 for sanitary sewer. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 25 11. The total remaining assessment due payable to the City for the Trunk Highway 5 Project is gal4&-344 $112,651 for watermain. 12. Encroachment agreements will be required for the islands within the fight-of-way. 13. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds. 14. Areas with a street grade greater than 7% must be revised to meet the criteria. 15. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer. 16. Access to the commercial lot shall be via a shared driveway with the neighboring commercial lot to the west. The access will be located just east of the median on West 78th Street. 17. Move the pond outlet pipe for the pond in the southwest comer of the site from beneath the 20-foot berm. 18. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 365 trees to be planted. 19. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear yard areas and buffer yards. 20. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits on Lots 29-34- 34, Block 1 and Lots 22-_04 32, Block 2 prior to any construction. A conservation easement shall be placed ~- '~ ......... r, ~,~ ~ oQ ~.r r~,,qf ~ said lots ........ · ~, ..... ,~ ................. over . 21. The following lots shall be custom graded: Lots 22-28, Block 2 and Lots 29-34 of Block 1. Any trees removed on Lots 29-31, Block 1 and Lots 22-28, Block 2 in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. 22. All trees removed within the utility easement along thc north side of the development shall be replaced I: 1. 23. All of the proposed house pads must have a rear yard elevation at least three feet above the HWL of adjacent ponds. 24. On the grading plan: a. Show the emergency overflow roi' the back yard areas of Block 1. b. Show the rear yard low points roi' the areas without a pond or wetland. c. Show the existing contour elevations roi' the neighboring property to the east a minimum of 100 feet outside of the site. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 26 d. Show all existing and proposed easements. e. Show the benchmark which was used for the site survey. 25. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a wetland alteration permit application. Prior to wetland impacts occurring, the applicant shall obtain City approval of a wetland replacement plan. 26. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around Basins 1, 3 and the wetland mitigation areas. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Basin 2. 27. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 28. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 29. All proposed trails and trail easements shall be located outside of the wetland buffer area. 30. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40-foot wetland buffer setback. 31. Structures on Lots 1 I, 12 and 13 of Block 2 should be designed to accommodate decks or other accessory structures within the 60 x 70 building pad or the lots should be reconfigured to provide more flexibility. 32. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. On-site storm water ponding shall be sufficient to meet all City water quality and quantity standards. 33. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 34. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. 35. All on-site sewage treatment systems must be abandoned in accordance with City Code. 36. Prior to permit submittals the developer shall meet with the Inspections Division to discuss the design and construction of the twinhomes. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 27 37. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 38. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 39. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3. 40. In the cul-de-sacs with the center island "no parking" signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen City Fire Marshal for additional information. 41. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees or shrubs must be either removed fi-om site or chipped. 42. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 43. Submit cul-de-sac to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 44. Additional fire hydrants will be required. One will be required at the intersection of "A" Street and "B" Street; one will be required between lots 23 and 24, and an additional hydrant will be required at thc intersection of "C" Street and West 78th Street Frontage Road 45. The applicant shall be required to build the "wetland" trail between Lots 18 and 19 and in the rear of Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. This trail shall be 8 feet wide and constructed from bituminous pavement per City standard specifications. The trail shall be connected with the existing trail, which terminates at Lot 13 of The Meadows at LongAcres. A permanent 20-foot wide trail easement shall be described by the applicant generally centered on the new trail and granted to the City to allow the maintenance and upkeep of this public trail. The applicant is eligible for reimbursement of the construction costs of said trail, including materials and labor, but excluding engineering, surveying, legal and all other associated costs. To be eligible for reimbursement fi'om the city's trail fund the applicant shall submit construction plans and specifications and construction costs to the City 45 or more days prior to the start of construction for review and attthorization. Assuming authorization to proceed is received and upon completion Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 28 of construction, the applicant shall be eligible for reimbursement. Said construction shall be covered by warranties equal to or exceeding industry standards. 46. The City shall accept the small upland portion of Outlot F in the northwest comer of the project as parkland dedication assuming all of Outlot F is transferred into public ownership. The dollar amount of this credit will be calculated per City ordinance. 47. All remaining Park and Trail fees be collected per City ordinance. 48. All lots meet the standards of the R-4 zoning district. Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditional Use 2002-4: Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval of wetland alteration permit for alteration and conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District as shown on plans dated June ;z 24, 2002 and subject to the findings of the staff report and the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall install a bridge over the swale between Basins 2 and 3 to avoid wetland impacts and enhance the aesthetics of this area. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a wetland alteration permit application. Prior to wetland impacts occurring, the applicant shall obtain City approval of a wetland replacement plan. 3. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. Thc plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetlands. 4. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around Basins 1, 3 and the wetland mitigation m'eas. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Basin 2. (Those buffers considered for Public Value Credit (PVC) under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) shall maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 7. All proposed trails and trail easements shall be located outside of the wetland buffer area. Vasserman Ridge June 18, 2002 Page 29 10. 11. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40-foot wetland buffer setback. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits fi'om the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application 2. Hearing notice and property owner list 3. Legal Description Exhibit A 4. Letter fi'om Lundgren Bros. to neighbors. 5. Traffic Noise Assessment 6. Landscape requirements fi'om Kevin Norby 7. Letter from MnDOT dated June 13, 2002. g:\plan\ka\arborctmn village pc doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION AJ~P]_IC~JNFT: Lundgren Bros. Construction OWNER: Same ~d3DRESS: 935 East Wayzata Boulevard ADDRESS: Wayzata~ MN B~.~91 -TELEPHONE (Daytime) (952) 249-3031, TELEPHONE: 5_.0._0__ Comprehensive Plan Amendment 750 Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit ~ Planned Unit Development' ~ Rezoning Sign Permits __ Sign P/an Review Site PJan Review' __ Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance 27,5 Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment 1_5(3 Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CU PIS P R/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 1 R~(1 Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ 3,335.00 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site pl,a~ reviews. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. "* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract ~ROJECTNAME Dolejsi South / Gateway (To be renamed soon) LOCATION I_EGALDESCRIPTION SoP attanhPd surveys TOTAL. ACREAGE 68.758 acres VCE'T]_ANDS PRESENT X . YES NO ~*}~F_SENTZONING A-2 Aqr i cu 1 tura 1 R-4 Mixed Low Density, R£QUESI--h_DZONINGDistrict at Commercial Residental District and PUD - Flanned Unit Development Property PFLESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Agrirnltnral / Gateway Group Home ]~EQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION New Residential Subdivison and Commercial Component :REASON FOR THIS REQUEST TO obtain city approvals for a new 38 u.~it twinhome, 46 single family homes: private park including swimminq pool/poolhouse and 1.944of commercial to be attached Pulte commercial. -f'his 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 DepaC,,ment tm determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. to determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. -Thi~; is to certify that 1 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 1 am the authorized person to make ~Ls applic.~ion and the fee owner has also signed this application. I w~ keep myseff 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 ~'~y knowledge. "]"he city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensio~ are approved~ the applicant. -~'i_qnaiure of Apphcant %~,_.~ Date Signature of Fee Owner Date J~opiicaIion Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not cant. acted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. CITYOF CHANHASSEN P,} Bu, x 147 Administration Building Inspections Engineering Finance Park & Recreation Planning & flatural Resources Public Works Senior Center ::, '!;:,7:!! Web Site June 10, 2002 Dear Properly Owner: This letter is to notify you that the following project will be heard by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Request to re~one 68. 76 acres of prope~v zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development, RSF, Residential Single Family and R-4, Residential Mixed Use, preliminary plat to create 46 single family homes, 38 twinhomes and 1.94 acres of commercial and a wetland alteration permit to alter a wetland, and a conditional use permit for alteration in the Bluff Creek Overlay District located on the north side of Hwy. 5, and northeast of Centur3, Boulevard, Vasserman Ridge, Llilld&*rell Bros. CollSD'llCliOll. Should you have any questions, please feel fl'ee to contact me at (952) 227-1139. Sincerely, Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® ~IID AMERICAN BAPTIST SOCIAL 3ERVICES CORPORATION !600 ARBORETUM BLVD :.XCELSIOR MN 55331 DENEEN D YOUNG 7852 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER A WILLADSEN 2386 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 3RUCE A & YVONNE M GESKE 7325 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CARVER COUNTY HRA 705 WALNUT ST N CttASKA MN 55318 THOMAS S BLUSTIN 2394 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 )OUGLAS C & THERESA J BENTZ 7280 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KAREN A OLSON 7850 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CtlANItASSEN MN 55317 TRISTAN J KUSNIEREK 2384 HARVEST WAY CHANt tASSEN MN 55317 I'HEODORE F & MARLENE M BENTZ ?300 GALPIN BLVD :.XCELS1OR MN 55331 DAWN N tlUEBERT 2372 HARVEST WAY Ct tANIiASSEN MN 55317 EDWARD & MAXINE MITCHELL 2392 HARVEST WAY CttANttASSEN MN 55317 I'ltEODORE F & MARLENE M BENTZ 7300 GALPIN BLVD....~..~~''~' !:~XCELS1OR _~-" MN 55331 WILLIAM C & Ct IERI I3 Wt IISI.ER 7848 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CItANltASSEN MN 55317 PATRICIA S DEZIEL 2382 ItARVEST \\fAY CIIANIIASSEN MN 55317 1 P'S LINKS INC C/O JOtIN PRZYMUS 042 SANTA VERA DR CttANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK C GOO1)MAN 2370 ItARVEST WAY CtlANItASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT M TiMMONS 7851 ttARVEST LN CttANttASSEN MN 55317 C1 tASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS 3610 CO RD 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 ROBERT A & TAMMARA S ROSL:NGREN 7846 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CIIANItASSEN MN 55317 MARGARET A O'BRII:N 2406 ltARVEST WAY CtlANHASSEN M N 55317 CENTEX HOMES 12400 WHITEWATERfDt~0 ttOPKINS MN 55343 ROBERT M & PATRICIA L PETERSON 2398 ttARVEST WAY CttANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT A REILEY & CATHERINE MCMAHON 7849 ttARVEST LN CHANttAS SEN M N 55317 (',&ROL A LAMBRECHT 7868 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CttANttASSEN MN 55317 STACY ANN BENNET 2388 IIARVEST WAY CIIANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN T & DIANE M PERRY 2404 ItARVEST WAY CttANttASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN B BUJARSKI & ';ttARON L KING _'376 HARVEST WAY ?t L.\NHASSEN MN 55317 RODNEY DORSCttNER 2396 t tARVEST WAY CI IANI IASSEN MN 55317 CttARLES W & ltEIDI M ZEMEK 7847 HARVEST LN CttANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® NILA J LUBY 2402 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JONATHAN D ANDERSON SR & CATHERINE L ANDERSON 2645 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID M & AMY K LYONS 7320 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHERINE M KORPI & IOANNE R SCHMIEG 7845 HARVEST LN THANHASSEN MN 55317 ANTHONY J & KATHY A LARSON 2631 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LONGACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONST INC 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 MATTHEW D SZYBNSKI !400 HARVEST WAY THANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES B & CAROLYN BAKERS 2613 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 IOHN T & VICTORIA RILEY !717 LONGACRES DR 2HANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID M & ELIZABETH D KUCERA 2572 SOUTHERN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATTHEW D & KIMBERLY HALLER 7400 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 iONATHAN F & TttERESA M WEHSE !719 LONGACRES DR 'ttANItASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL T & MARY T K MAESER 2584 SOUTIiERN CT CiIANHASSEN MN 55317 LEE K & BARBARA CRECELIUS 7406 MOCASSIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 )ARRYL L WILLS & _IZANN M BRISSE-WILLS !721 LONGACRES DR 7ItANI tASSEN MN 55317 KELLY M & CINDY 1. O'NEILL 2596 SOUTHERN CT CtlANItASSEN MN 55317 NICttOLAS C & KAREN M POWERS 7414 MOCCASIN TRL CltANHASSEN MN 553 l 7 gANG CAM & NttI T KY !711 LONGACRES DR 7HANItASSEN MN 55317 MICttAEL E & ANNE M RYAN 2595 SOUTItERN CT CttANt tASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD E & SANDRA A NICHOLS 7424 MOCCASIN TRL CttANHASSEN MN 55317 'ETER A & KlM MARIE PROSEN ~.701 LONGACRES DR 7HANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN G & NORMA J EVANS 2585 SOUTHERN CT CItANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS B & LAURA E PAPAS 7434 MOCCASIN TRL CItANHASSEN MN 55317 ;COTT C & COURTNEY E RILE !665 LONGACRES DR .'ttANtt ASSEN MN 55317 JON E FREEMAN 2575 SOUTHERN CT CtlANttASSEN MN 55317 JOHN O ESCH & LEAH HAWKE 7444 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 '.IAZ & SttlREEN ltUSEIN '655 I.ONGACRES DR 't tANttASSEN MN 55317 NICHOLAS It STILLINGS & DENISE C STILLINGS 2670 LONGACRES DR C1 IANIIASSEN MN 55317 JAMES L & LISA R COLBERT 7454 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® DAVID G & STACY R HURRELL 7460 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH KELLY BAHR 7476 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH W SILBERNAGEL & MARY BETH SILBERNAGEL 7492 BENT BOW TRL Ct tANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT C & ELIZABETH J SPONSEL 7508 BENT BOW TRL ,r'ltANIIASSEN MN 55317 MICItAEL G & DIANN M TAYI.OR 7516 BENT BOW TRL ('ItANitASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M & SUSAN M COItOON 7525 BENT BO\V TRL CttAN]tASSEN MN 55317 MARK A & SARAtt I_ PI_ETTS 7517 BENT BOW TRL CHANttASSEN MN 55317 IOtlN E & KRIST1N M NYSTUL 7509 BENT BOW TRL CItANttASSEN MN 55317 gTEVEN M & NANCY P HANOUSEK 7501 BENT BOW TRL ?ttANttASSEN MN 55317 x~IARK J & KRIST1N F E SPANGRUD ~457 BENT BOW TRI~ 'IIANI1ASSEN MN 55317 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Vasserman Ridge PUD APPLICANT: LOCATION: Lundgren Bros. Construction North Side of Hwy. 5, NE of Century Blvd. NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Lundgren Bros. Construction, is requesting to rezone 68.76 acres of property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development, RSF, Residential Single Family and R-4, Residential Mixed Use, preliminary plat to create 46 single family homes, 38 twinhomes and 1.94 acres of commercial and a wetland alteration permit to alter a wetland, and a conditional use permit for alteration in the Bluff Creek Overlay District located on the north side of Hwy. 5, and northeast of Century Boulevard, Vasserman Ridge. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and 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 227-1139. 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 May 23, 2002. Smootl~ Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® NICHOLAS H STILLINGS & DENISE C STILLINGS 2670 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JONATHAN D ANDERSON SR & CATHERINE L ANDERSON 2645 LONGACRES DR CttANHASSEN MN 55317 MATTHEW D & KIMBERLY HALLER 7400 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID M & AMY K LYONS 7320 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT C & COURTNEY E RILE 2665 LONGACRES DR CItANHASSEN MN 55317 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD \VAYZAT.~A _~_ .----~' MN 55391 DARRYL L WILLS & LIZANN M BRISSE-WILI.S 2721 LONGACRES DR CHANttASSEN MN 55317 RIAZ & SttlREEN ItUSEIN 2655 LONGACRES DR CItANItASSEN MN 55317 LEE K & BARBARA CRECELIUS 7406 MOCASSIN TRL CltANttASSEN MN 55317 SANG CAM & NHIT KY 2711 LONGACRES DR CHANtlASSEN MN 55317 DAVID M & ELIZABETH D KUCERA 2572 SOUTt tERN CT CHANItASSEN MN 55317 NICttOLAS C & KAREN M POWERS 7414 MOCCASIN TRL CItANItASSEN MN 55317 I()NATItAN F & TIIERESA M WEIISE 2719 L()NGACP, ES DR ,~'11ANIlASSEN MN 55317 MICt IAEL T & MARY T I--2 MAESER 2584 SOLITttEI<N CT CHANt tASSF~N MN 55317 RICIIARD E & SANDRA ,,\ NICItOLS 7424 MOCCASIN TRI. CI I,,\NII:\SSI~N MN 55317 t)F~TER A & KlM M:\I;',II{ 2701 LONGACRES 1)R .~THANIt:\SSEN kin 55317 KEI.I)f M & CINDY I. ()'NEILI. 2596 SOUT11ERN CT ('1 tAN11ASSEN IXlN 55317 TttOMAS B & LAtiRA t'~ PAPAS 7434 MOCCASIN TP.I~ ('I IANI 1ASSEN MN 55317 iAMES 13 & CAROI.YN B ,,\KERS !613 LONGACRES DR 'ltANItASSEN MN 55317 JON E FRF. tiMAN 2575 SOUTIIF. RN CT C1 IAN11ASSEN MN 55317 JOttN O ESCIt & I.EAIt I tAXVKE 7444 MOCCASIN TP, I. Ct tANtfASSEN MN 55317 \NTItONY J & KATttY A I.ARSON %31 LONGACRES DR 'JtANHASSEN MN 55317 BRUCE A & YVONNE M GESKE 7325 ttAZELTINE BLVD F~XCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES L & I.ISA R COI~BERT 7454 BENT BOW TRL CHANilASSEN MN 55317 OttN T & VICTORIA RILEY 717 LONGACRES DR 'ltANIIASSEN MN 55317 MICItAEL E & ANNE M RYAN 2595 SOUTHERN CT C}IANttASSEN MN 55317 DAVID G & STACY R ttURRELL 7460 BENT BOW TRL CHANItASSEN MN 55317 ONGACP. ES ttOMEO\VNERS ASSN INC /O LUNDGREN BROS CONST INC ~5 WAYZATA BLVD E 'AYZATA MN 55391 I3P. IAN G & NORMA J EVANS 2585 SOUTHERN CT CI tANItASSEN MN 55317 MARK J ce< KRISTIN F E SPANGRUD 7487 BENT BO\V TRL CItANHASSEN MN 55317 Smoo[h Feed SlmetsTM Use template for 5160® JOSEPH KELLY BAHR 7476 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THEODORE F & MARLENE M BENTZ 7300 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARK C GOODMAN 2370 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH W SILBERNAGEL & MARY BETH SILBERNAGEL 7492 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 J P'S LINKS INC C/O JOHN PRZYMUS 642 SANTA VERA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT A & TAMMARA S ROSENGREN 7846 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M & NANCY P HANOUSEK 7501 BENT BOW TRL CHANtlASSEN MN 55317 MID AMERICAN BAPTIST SOCIAl. SERVICES CORPORATION 2600 ARBORETUM BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS S BLUSTIN 2394 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT C & ELIZABETH J SPONSEL 7508 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CttASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS 3610 CO RD 101 \VAYZATA MN 55391 TRISTAN J KUSNIEREK 2384 HARVEST WAY CI IANHASSEN MN 55317 JOtfN E & KRISTIN M NYSTUL 7509 BENT BOW TP, L Ct tANItASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CItANHASSEN C/O BRUCE DEJONG 7700 MARKETI'B-LVI) PO BOX 147 ('I t/~N'I'IT~SEN MN 55317 CIIARLES \\' & ttEIDI M ZEMEK 7847 I1ARVEST LN CItANIIASSEN MN 55317 TI II£ODORE F & MAR1.ENtz M BENTZ 7300 GALP1N EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CITY OF CHANItASSEN C/O BRUCE DEJONG 7700 MARKET BLVD PO BOX 147 CttANttASSEN' MN 55317 NILA J LUBY 2402 ItARVEST WAY CI tANItASSEN MN 55317 IXllCItAEL G & DIANN M TAYI.OR 7510 BEN]' BOW TRL (?ttANtlASSEN MN 55317 EDWARD & MAXINE M1TCItEIA~ 2392 I1ARVEST WAY CItANItASSEN MN 55317 DAWN N HUEBERT 2372 IIARVEST WAY CItANItASSEN MN 55317 MARK A & SARAH L PLETTS 7517 BENT BOW TRL ('ttANIiASSEN MN 55317 PATRICIA S DEZIEL 2382 HARVEST WAY CI IANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM C & CHER1 B WttlSLER 7848 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M & SUSAN M COttOON 7525 BENT BOW TRL CtlANIqASSEN MN 55317 KATHERINE M KORPI & JOANNE R SCHMIEG 7845 HARVEST LN Ct 1ANHASSEN MN 55317 RODNEY DORSCHNER 2396 HARVEST WAY CttANItASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS C & TIIERESA J BENTZ 7280 GALP1N BLVD :~XCELSIOR MN 55331 MATTHEW D SZYBNSKI 2400 ttARVEST WAY CHANttASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER A WILLADSEN 2386 HARVEST WAY Ct tANItASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® SCOTT A REILEY & CATHERINE MCMAHON 7849 HARVEST LN CI tANHASSEN MN 55317 CENTEX tiOMES 12400 WHITEWATER DR #120 t tOPKINS MN 55343 JOIIN T & DIANE M PERRY 2404 HARVEST WAY Ct tANHASSEN MN 55317 CAROL A LAMBRECttT 7868 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE C}tANHASSEN MN 55317 CARVER COUNTY HRA 705 WALNUT ST N 71tASKA MN 55318 KAREN A OLSON 7850 AUTUMN RII)GE AVE ?IL,\NItASSEN MN 55317 ¢OBI~Ie.T M & PATRI('IA 1. I'iZTI-~P. SON '308 t lARVEST WAY 'tlANIIASSEN MN 55317 ';'I A('Y ANN Bi~NNET 2388 ItARVI~ST '} tANt tA SSEN MN 55317 ';CO'IT M TIMMONS 7851 IIARVI]ST I~N "tlANItASSF. N MN 55317 vlAR(]At~.I]T A O'BP. 1EN ;406 lIAR\ZEST WAY '1 tANllASSEN MN 55317 4TEVEN B BUJARSKI & 4HARON L KING ~.376 ItARVEST WAY 't IANItASSEN MN 55317 )ENEEN D YOUNG '852 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 't tANttASSEN YIN 55317 ~-- ~ ~ ' ~ ~ LUNDGREN BROTHERS Your Neighborhood Builder Phone 952.473.1231 Fax 952.473.7401 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 www lundgrenbros corn B~2rder License No 0001 ~.13 April 30, 2002 To: All Neighbors with-in 500 feet of nexv proposed Lundgren Subdivision and any other interested parties. From: Mike Burton, Land Development Project Manager, Lundgren Bros. Construction Re: Neighborhood Meeting for Dolejsi South/Gatexvay Nexv Subdivision Ladies and Gentlemen, We are pleased to announce that Lundgren Bros. Construction has an option to acquire the Gateway Group Home and is making plans to incorporate this property into our proposed residential subdivision on Outlot K, the property immediately south of Long Acres. It is our desire to place 46 single family homes adjacent to Long Acres and 38 high end Txvin Homes near Highway 5. We are planning on a three phase development. It is our goal to construct Phase I consisting of 20 of the twin homes and the H.O.A. Park this summer/fall 2002. it is our desire that Gateway vacate their facility during spring/early summer 2003, thereby allowing us to commence demolition of all Gateway buildings and construction of the subdivision on the site as part of Phase II. The final phase would be built in 2004, will consist of the remaining single family homes. 1 have enclosed a copy of the concept plan for this subdivision as yet unnamed. This new community will not be affiliated xvith the Long Acres Homeowners Associations. We hereby invite you to attend a Neighborhood Informational Meeting to be held on Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. This meeting will take place at the Chanhassen Recreation Center located at 2310 Coulter Drive in Chanhassen. If you have any questions you may telephone me directly at 952-249-303 l. I look forward to meeting with you! Sincerely, ~ Michael E. Burton Land Development Project Manager Lundgren Bros. Construction F ,t lSER~St t,,\RE'.l,AND',Cl t.\N} l:\SS;' Dolcisi-SouthXMcctingsXNcighborhood Meeting.doc Doljesi South Property Residential Development Chanhassen, Minnesota TRAFFIC NOISE ASSESSMENT Prepared for Lundgren Brothers by David Braslau Associates, Inc. 20May 2002 Doljesi South Property Traffic Noise Assessment Table of Contents 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 4.0 5.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 TRAFFIC COUNTS AND ASSUMED FUTURE TRAFFIC LEVELS ....................... 4 STAMINA NOISE MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND PREDICTIONS ......................... 5 Geometry and Receptor Site Assumptions ...................................................................... 5 Traffic Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 5 Traffic Noise Predictions ................................................................................................. 5 COMARISON OF LEVELS WITH STATE NOISE STANDARDS ............................ 8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 9 David Braslau Associates, Inc. Doljesi South Property Traffic Noise Assessment List of Figures Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Location of the Doijesi South Property ................................................................... 2 Proposed Home Layout and Grading Plan ............................................................. 3 Predicted L10 Traffic Noise Levels .......................................................................... 6 Predicted L50 Traffic Noise Levels .......................................................................... 7 List of Tables Table 1.1 Minnesota Noise Standards ....................................................................................... 1 Table 2.1 Assumed Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour - 2010 ................................................ 4 David Braslau Associates, Inc. Doljesi South ProperW Traffic Noise Assessment 1.0 INTRODUCTION The objectives of the study described in this report were to establish anticipated traffic noise levels within the proposed residential development and to recommend measures to ensure that all of the residences were at or below state noise standards. The Doljesi South property is located in the City of Chanhassen north of TH 5 approximately 2 miles west of downtown Chanhassen as shown in Figure 1.1. The study relies upon traffic volumes obtained from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the year 2000 and estimated for the year 2020. These volumes were adjusted to the year 2010 assuming continuous growth throughout the 20 year period. The study compares predicted traffic noise levels with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noise standards, which are summarized in Table 1.1. Minnesota rules (7030.0040) contain noise standards for different classifications of receiving land use. L10 is the sound level exceeded for 10% or 6 minutes of an hour. L50 is the sound level exceeded 50% or 30 minutes of an hour. Table 1.1 Minnesota Noise Standards Daytime Nighttime NAC General Description (7:00 am to 10:00 pm) (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) L10 L50 L10 L50 1 Residential 65 60 55 50 2 Commercial 70 65 70 65 3 Industrial 80 75 80 75 NAC - Noise Area Classification (defined in 7030.0050) This study demonstrates that the layout and grading plan shoxvn in Figure 1.2 provides adequate shielding of the homes at ground level, where outdoor activity is likely to occur, to comply with the state daytime noise standards. The report also discusses appropriate noise attenuation from construction to permit the exception provisions of the Minnesota rules to be applied to the homes for compliance with the nighttime noise standards which do not include any outdoor uses. Section 2.0 of this report discusses MnDOT traffic counts on TH 5 and how these volumes have been adjusted for use in this study. Section 3.0 of this report describes the STAMiNA noise model assumptions and the predicted noise levels for expected peak period traffic along TH 5. Section 4.0 of this report compares predicted traffic noise levels with the State of Minnesota noise standards and demonstrates compliance with the state daytime residential noise standards. A discussion of construction needed to enable the exception provisions of Minnesota rules to be applied to the nighttime noise levels is included. Section 5.0 presents a short summary of findings and conclusions. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 1 Doljesi South Property Traffic Noise Assessment 2.0 TRAFFIC COUNTS AND ASSUMED FUTURE TRAFFIC LEVELS Average daily traffic volumes were obtained from MnDOT for the years 2000 (counts) and 2020 (forecast). These were adjusted to the interim year 2010 which is assumed to represent the worst case year due to improved technology in the future. The difference in volume between 2010 and 2020 will also have little impact on overall traffic noise levels. A peak hour volume of 10% of daily volume and a 60/40 split assumed for the afternoon peak hour, with westbound traffic 60% and eastbound traffic 40%. With the higher percentage of light trucks and sports utility vehicles, the vehicle mix was assumed to consist of 90% passenger cars, 8% medium trucks and 2% heavy trucks. The assumed traffic volumes are shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Assumed Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour - 2010 Total Passenger Medium Heavy Volume Cars Trucks Trucks 60 pct westbound 1860 1674 149 37 40 pct eastbound 1240 1116 99 25 David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 4 Doljesi South Property Traffic Noise Assessment 3.0 STAMINA NOISE MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND PREDICTIONS 3.1. Geometry and Receptor Site Assumptions The proposed layout and grading plan shown in Figure 1.2 has been used here to estimate future sound levels. This layout is the result of an earlier analysis on a preliminary plan where some general concepts for grading and shielding of homes was recommended. In addition to shielding from the berms shown in Figure 1.2, a GM Barner between the eastbound and westbound roadways is assumed that also provides some shielding of tire noise in the eastbound lanes. Representative home sites within 600 feet of the TH 5 centerIine have been selected for analysis. The numbers shown in Figure 1.2 refer to lot numbers except for the receptors E1 and E3 which represent lots 1 and 3 in the easterly-most block on the property. 3.2. Traffic Assumptions The traffic volumes and vehicle mix shown above in Table 2.1 have been used for the analysis. A traffic speed of 60 mph has been assumed for all time periods. No grade and normal pavement texture have been assumed along this segment of roadway. 3.3. Traffic Noise Predictions The resulting peak hour traffic noise predictions are shown in Figure 3.1 (L10 levels) and in Figure 3.6 (LS0 levels). David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 5 (~ep) o ~q (v~p) os-] Doljesi South Property Traffic Noise Assessment 4.0 COMARISON OF LEVELS WITH STATE NOISE STANDARDS As can be seen in Figure 3.1, the L10 levels are generally 2 to 3 dBA below the daytime L10 65 dBA noise standard. However, any increase in heavy vehicle traffic could cause some increase in this level. In Figure 3.2, it can be seen that the L50 60 dBA standard is just met at the homes closest to the highway, while some of the homes further from the roadway are predicted to have slightly lower levels. However, to ensure that the L50 level at Site 01 does not exceed 60 dBA, an extension of 100 feet to the east of the peak of the longest berm is recommended as shown in Figure 1.2. While detailed information is not available to establish traffic volumes during the most critical "nighttime" hour (6 to 7 am), it can normally be assumed that this is approximately 60% of the PM Peak Hour traffic. With the heavier volume on the eastbound lane, noise levels are expected to be approximately 5 dBA over the nighttime (10 pm to 7 am) standards. However, because of the exception provisions contained in the Minnesota noise rules, appropriate construction and operation can permit the daytime standards to govern placement of these homes. The folloxving exceptions are provided under Minnesota Rule 7030.0050: Subp. 3. Exceptions. The noise area classification for a land use may be changed in the following ways if the applicable conditions are met. B. The standards for a building in a noise area classification 2 shall be applied to a building in a noise area classification 1 if the following conditions are met: (1) the building is constructed in such a xvay that the exterior to interior sound level attenuation is at least 30 dB(A); (2) the building has year-round climate control; and (3) the building has no areas or accommodations that are intended for outdoor activities. The Noise Area Classification (NAC) 2 standards (for commercial land uses) are L10 70 and L50 65 during both daytime and nighttime periods. Because of improved home construction techniques, the first two conditions will generally be met for new homes. While the home may have areas intended for outdoor use during daytime hours, these are generally not intended for outdoor use between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Therefore, under normal circumstances, the higher noise standards (L10 70 and L50 65) are applicable for this time period and under this exception, no exceedances of the state noise standards are anticipated. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 8 Doljesi South Property Traffic Noise Assessment $.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Traffic noise levels have been estimated at the selected home sites ~vithin the Doljesi South Property in Chanhassen, Minnesota. Average Daily traffic volumes obtained from the Minnesota Department of Transportation have been used to develop future traffic volumes in the year 2010 during the PM Peak Hour, which normally represents the highest traffic noise period during the day. Traffic noise levels have been predicted using the STAMINA 2.0 highway noise model, taking into account shielding provided by earth berms incorporated into the grading plan. An analysis of traffic noise levels was performed for a preliminary site and grading plan which led to the revisions as shmvn in Figure 1.2. An analysis of traffic noise levels for the representative home sites identified in Figure 1.2 indicates that these sites will be in compliance with the Minnesota state noise standards dunng the PM Peak Hour. While predicted traffic noise levels are likely to be higher than the residential nighttime noise standards, a exception in the Minnesota rules permits the noise standards for commercial land uses to be applied when home construction meets the requirements of these rules. Therefore, based upon the analysis performed in this study, predicted traffic noise levels will be at or lower than levels contained in the state noise standards for residential land uses. y:",jobs ,200 l jobs'201086",report' doljcsi-rep.doc David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 9 Kevin G. Norby & Associates, Inc. Vasserman Ridge City of Chanhassen Landscape Requirements Calculated by Kevin G. Norby & Associates, Inc. June 12, 2002 Tree Replacement Based on Schoell and Madson's calculations, 307 - 2 ½" trees are required on the site. Some of these trees may be used to satisfy the City's Front Yard Tree Requirement of 1 o 2 ½" tree per lot. Per the City's recommendation, 20% of the trees will be coniferous. Deciduous Trees ~ 2 ~' = 178 Coniferous Trees ~ 8' = 45 Deciduous Trees, Front Yard ~ 2 ~' = 84 Total = 307 Front Yard Trees (see above) There are 46 single-family lots and 38 twin home lots for a total of 84 front yard trees. Buffervard Trees The area between the south lots and West 78th Street has a buffer requirement of Bufferyard "B". The length of the bufferyard is 1900 ln.ft.. Of this length, 1700 In.ft. contain a berm (greater than 3' in height) and the remaining 200 in. ft. do not have a berm over 3'. The width of the bufferyard is 30'. The plant requirements are as follows: 1700 in.ft, with berm Calculations based on 100' increments (17), a 30' wide bufferyard and the reduction of tmderstory trees and shrubs by 50%. (Numbers are rounded up.) 2 canopy trees x .4 = 1 1 x 17 = 17 4 understory trees x .4 = 2 x .5 = 1 x 17 = 17 6 shrubs x.4 = 3 x.5 = 2 x 17 = 51 200 in.ft, without a berm Calculations based on 100' increments (2), a 30' wide bufferyard. (Numbers are rounded up.) 2 canopy trees x .4 = 1 1 x 2 = 2 4 understory trees x .4 = 2 2 x 2 = 4 6 shrubs x .4 = 3 3 x 2 = 6 Therefore, the plant materials total for the Bufferyard are: Canopy Trees = 19 Understory Trees = 21 Shrubs = 57 6452 City West Parkway, F. dcn Prah'ic, Minnesota 55344 / (952) 942-0266 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 June 11,2002 Mr. Robert Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Post Oftice Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RECBVED JUN 1 3 2002 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SubJect: Vasserman Ridge--Mn/DOT Review #P02-064 Northeast Quadrant of Trunk Highwq_y 5 and Century, Boulevard Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1002 Dear Mr. Generous: Thc Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) lnas reviewed tine above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03. subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please address the tbllowing issues: For your inlbrmation, the location of the westerly access may create safety problems due to the horizontal curve to the west and the elevation of the land on the soutln side of the street to the west of the access. The location of this access should be studied to see if there is a better access solution. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact Lars Impola (651-634-2379) in Mn/DOT's Traffic section. The right of way lines for Trunk Higtnway 5 are not correct. As shown, tine riglnt of way lines do not reflect the most current construction. Ttne right of way should be shown and labeled according to plat 10-16, using three-dash symbology. If' you lnavc any questions regarding this intbrmation, please contact John Isackson (651-582-1273) in bin"DOT's Riglnt of` Ways section. Please send one copy of the final plat to tine following address for our files: Bruce Wetherbee Mn/DOT - Metro West Surveys 2055 N. Lilac Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 Ptnone: (763) 797-3110 The proposed development xvill need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm water is discharged from the site must not increase). The proposed Q10, Q50, and Q100 must match existing conditions. The City or project developer will need to submit Ibr review before/after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events verifying that all existing drainage patterns and systems affecting Mn/DOT right of way will be perpetuated. For your information, Schoell and Mason has been provided with computations used for the sizing of the inlet tie into the stornn sewer for the basis or'the pond routing. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Patrick McLarron (651-634-2400) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. An equal opportunity employer Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. Access permits will be required for access to West 78th Street. A drainage permit will also be required, Please direct questions regarding permit applications to Keith VanWagner (651-582-1443) of Mn/DOT's Permits section. As a reminder, West 78th Street is proposed City of Chanhassen Municipal State Aid Route 113. Any work on a MSA route must meet State Aid rules and policies. Also, the City must review any changes to its Municipal State Aid system so that they stay xvithin its system limitations. You may obtain additional information regarding State Aid rules and policies in any of the following ways: htlp://~.wxx.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/shows or has links to the applicable forms and the Mn/DOT State Aid Manual. ¢- Refer to the Mn/DOT State Aid Manual, Chapter 5-892.200 for information regarding standards and policies. > Please go to h,_~://xv~.,,~..re~iso!'.le~.state.mn.us/artde/8820/ for information regarding State Aid Operations Rules Chapter 8820. For driveway standards, the designer is directed to refer to the Mn/DOT Road Design Manual (English) Table 5-3.04A and Figure 5-3.04A for guidance and policies. Driveway widths, other than those recommended, up to 50 feet will be permitted only by special permission of the Commissioner of Transportation or designee. Please contact Jim Deeny in our State Aid section at (651) 582-1389 with any additional questions. Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of tine land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you Inave any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582-1293. Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans, environmental reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to: Paul Czech Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or txvo (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. Feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1378 if you should have any questions. Je/a~T~r Chaputl ~AIC P Sdfiior TranspoAhtion Planner CC: John Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council Lundeen Brothers Construction Ken Adolf, Schoell & Madson Mn/DOT Division File C.S. 1004 Mn/DOT LGL - Chanhassen