Loading...
PC Minutes 7-19-05 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 McDonald: I will advance that courtesy to them, if they wish to amend their application. Larry Martin: No. Papke: Okay. McDonald: Then I will throw it open for a motion. Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we deny Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on the lot zoned single family residential, RSF based upon the findings in the staff report and the following. Number 1. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship. Number 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. Therefore the Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements and to plant 3 trees to meet subdivision requirements. McDonald: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Larson: Second. McDonald: I have a second. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission deny Variance #05-18 for a 4.23 % hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25 % hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on the lot zoned single family residential, RSF based upon the findings in the staff report and the following. 1. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. Therefore the Planning Commission orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. 2. Plant 3 trees to meet subdivision requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMA TEL Y 91 ACRES INTO 84 LOTS. 3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 459 TOWNHOUSE UNITS; WETLAND AL TERA TION PERMIT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AL TERA TION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD. SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD. AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL. LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK. APPLICANT TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-11. Public Present: Name Address Richard Dorsey Char Jeurissen 1551 Lyman Boulevard 9715 Audubon Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Okay with that we'll throw it open. Does anyone have any questions for staff? Who wants to start? Zorn: Hey Kate I have two questions. One of the discussion points that we had last time was the length of the driveway, perhaps from the private street and the issue that making certain that the driveway was long enough for a car or large vehicle wouldn't hang over the end and disrupt traffic on that street. Can you speak to that? Aanenson: Sure. That was addressed and modified. Originally the version you saw before had 459 units and that actually was modified to, so this is where we have the drives that were shorter. All the driveways now are 20 feet in length and they can accommodate the guest parking and we believe that makes a better design. Zorn: Great. And then my second question is in regards to the retaining wall. Can you, do you know what the heights of those would be? Aanenson: Sure. Zorn: Being that they've been reduced but just curious to know what they've been reduced to. Aanenson: ... said it on here. Zorn: Oh I'm sorry. I overlooked that. Aanenson: Yeah. It's 4 foot through here. In this area, this one is steeper. There's no wall through here. Again what we're hoping is that, as these two catch up the project.. . make sure that we can actually balance and blend those grades together. So I think originally it had over a 20 foot wall. . . Zorn: Thanks. McDonald: Is that all Deborah? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Zorn: Yes. Papke: You mentioned the parking plan. The only drawing we have in the staff report looks to be kind of a hand sketch here and the parking isn't real clear. The on street parking. If either you or the applicant, perhaps the applicant has a better drawing or if you do. If you could just quickly review for us what the on site parking looks like. Do you want to wait for the applicant to do? Aanenson: Well yeah actually it was, I thought I put it in here as one of the attachments. Papke: Did I miss it? Aanenson: It's a colored one. I'm not sure it copied off in black and white. I also did include all the building plans for all of the product to. Papke: We could get the building plans for the individual units but I didn't see, maybe Ijust missed the parking plan but I know for certain it wasn't in color so it was really hard to figure out. McDonald: Dan, any questions? Keefe: Sure. In regards to the pool part, I think we talked about this a number of times. In terms of access to the pool park. We talked potentially about having some sort of north/south connection but are we still just looking at walking across the collector road to get to it or. Aanenson: Yeah, I think one what, in working with the applicant, looking at that, looking at traffic calming. With the sidewalk here. We can have this as a significant crossing between the two projects. Encouraging people to cross at that intersection. The sidewalks on both sides, and with the median in the middle, we discourage them to cut across so you're at maybe a controlled 4 way stop. For that movement across which was a suggestion, they did support that. Keefe: And just in terms of you know, I'm not exactly sure what they're planning in terms of the sort of family orientation versus other types of residents but you know I could envision a family pushing a stroller, trying to get over to the pool area. Or to a park. What is the general distance from sort of the northern end of this project to the regional park? Is that like. Aanenson: Well it'd be more like, the 20 acre? Probably more a neighborhood park. Let's see, go back to, so we're right in here. It's right here. That would be a trail. Keefe: It's a pretty fair distance, isn't it? Aanenson: I doubt you would push a stroller from there. Yeah. Keefe: And then in regards to getting to this particular pool area, you would have to cross the road. Is that? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Aanenson: That's correct. Keefe: Okay. Just want to be clear on that. The product types in terms of the livable communities, we talked a little bit about, it looked like there might be a reduction in that now. Aanenson: Yeah, again there's no assistance or anything and again they're coming in at 197 would meet the Met Council's, and that would probably maybe, about 50 I believe... Keefe: Maybe 10% would come in at that? Aanenson: Yeah. Keefe: Okay. That's it for now. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: I don't have anything. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Some of the design of the facades of the buildings there we talked about doing some changes and on here I can see with the black and whites... Aanenson: Yeah, based on... Yes. What we're working on is getting some additional...can you see that? With some additional brick. The color palette. I think the one that we're looking at for additional brick still was off on the side.. .and then the issue that this one with the gray. Can you see that one? Just the gray, that we change that out.. .little more institutional so. You get a lot of articulation fenestration so we felt really good about that. McDonald: Is that all for right now? Well, if there's no further questions of staff. Are we waiting on a drawing to come back up to answer Kurt's? Aanenson: Yeah, if we can take 2 seconds I'll flip this off and I'll run up and grab that. McDonald: Okay, we can take 2 seconds. Papke: So could you just point out where the different parking areas are? Aanenson: Sure. The largest unit has the guest parking... At the end of this private street will also allow some guest parking. Otherwise in, is this the Chateau? That also has guest parking in the driveway and additional on the private streets. We also have provided for on street parking on these public streets. And that's again... This street, which does have some additional moved over. This street now with the revisions will actually tie back into this, a problem with this road now goes this way. So these... This has shifted a little bit so we'll pick that up. The guest 15 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 parking again, the driveways, kind of the end. And this is the area that's changed where we actually get the walkouts or this... Papke: So the dark areas on that drawing, all the parking places... Aanenson: That's correct. So they also differentiate between driveway stalls will be the maroon. Private drive is beige and the public streets, so blue is on the public street. Papke: Okay. Aanenson: Again that's a different look that we're trying in this, some ofthe traffic calming. Some of the design and things that we talked which is our multi-family. It was a different look with the streetscape, and depending on the type of product where you actually walk up to this, we have a walk up style... McDonald: I have a question for you, once you've got that because that's different than the drawing here. Aanenson: That's right. This is revised. The one you have is a little different. McDonald: Okay, the street connection then on the north end, has that been removed where now that's just going to be a loop in there instead of a connection? Aanenson: This will now, the street actually. Put one out on that side. So this was the plan that you saw in April. Revised plan based on the city's road with the round-a-bout. Now this will come through and was how that guest parking was. That will need to be relocated. Again we're still waiting to see where exactly the road went. Applicant: Kate, it's just being relocated to the south on the eye brow... Aanenson: Yeah, it's still in that area, yeah. So I'm sorry... So that's the change is the connection there, and again these are the products that changed. It's also... The first iteration, some of the guest parking in the driveway, that was some of the concern, whether it was close enough. McDonald: Any further questions of staff? Okay, then I would ask the applicant to come up and. Kevin Clark: Good evening Chairman, fellow commissioners. My name is Kevin Clark. I'm the Director of Land Development for Town and Country Homes. A Kyat Manning Company. With me tonight is our development team that's been working with staff and others. Rick Jansen, our V.P. of Acquisition. Krista Novack, our Community Planning Director. Chris Morrell, our engineer with Westwood Professional Services. Ed Hasek, our Landscape Architect. Westwood Professional Services. David Wheaton, the wetlands specialist, also with Westwood Professional Services. And David Sellgren with Fredrickson and Byron. I want to express our gratitude first to the many people who have contributed to the plan you have before 16 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 you this evening, including city staff, planning, engineering and natural resources. City consultants, neighbors, the Park and Rec Board, yourselves, earlier Planning Commissions and City Councils. Especially the city's planning staff, Kate and her team have been instrumental in the evolution, not only of our plan but this entire AUAR area. Kate, thank you again for your thorough overview of our application and the history of the journey that we've been on since early in 2002. There have been many milestones achieved since those early meetings. Since receiving concept approval from medium density residential project in the Fall of 2002, a lot has taken place to get us to this point tonight. There have been many meetings, site walks, private tours, studies been commissioned, engineering assessments have been done, wetland inventories, workshops with both the parks, Planning Commission and the City Council. In addition to these the State is now underway with the Highway 212 improvements and now other landowners have begun to work with the city on other future developments in this location also. Certainly a lot of energy and resources have been invested in the planning of this project and the surrounding area. We are back before you this evening requesting preliminary plat approval for our plan that represents 446 multifamily units. We are in agreement with the staff's report and believe we have respectfully addressed the numerous requests, requirements and concerns we've been asked to incorporate into our design. These include protecting natural resources, elevating our architecture, accommodating public infrastructure improvements, and enhancing the community. Since our last meeting we have made numerous adjustments to our proposal to address these concerns. I'll name a few. We've revised our plan to meet all the Bluff Creek Overlay District requirements. We have minimized the need for retaining walls by more closely matching existing topography. We have completely revised our plan to accommodate the new alignment of the main collector road. We've addressed the request to provide adequate and evenly distributed parking, visitor parking throughout. We've upgraded our architecture to respond to staff feedback. We are incorporating staff recommendations into our landscaping plans. We have submitted, or substituted different buildings as Kate pointed out in order to further enhance and protect the Bluff Creek Overlay District which also result in a reduction of units. We've been careful and deliberate to preserve as much open space as possible to ensure that these areas are protected for further generations. These are all positive developments and we are very excited with the final results. Other attributes of our plan include the pedestrian friendly planning that we've included, tree preservation. We've been able to include the Jeurissen property. If you remember earlier plans showed that parcel as being kind of developed around. We've worked with them and have incorporated that into our plan. It's sensitive to the natural amenities. There is a neighborhood identity to the site. The pool amenity as proposed. The view shed as shown by the perspective that Kate had on the screen. The fact that we have no garages facing city streets. Again the elevated architecture. The affordable housing component, and the life cycle housing component of our project with units with first floor master bedrooms. All these factors add up to a very well thought out plan. We are committed to making this neighborhood a success story for the city, our neighbors and ourselves. Again the staff report was very thorough and we stand ready to discuss any elements of the proposal with you this evening. We thank you for consideration of our proposal and we look forward to our continued partnership with the city on this and possibly future opportunities. And again we'll stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. McDonald: Does anyone on the commission have any questions? Who wants to start? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Keefe: I've got a quick question. I'd like to hear your comments in regards to the pool area and accessibility to the pool area because we had a number of discussions about potentially moving it to the north side. And people's access to it and I've got a concern that maybe the, only the people on the south half might be able to get access to that because it's going to be a fairly busy street. Can you speak to that a little bit? Kevin Clark: Well I know early on a number of the discussions certainly tied into the pedestrian nature of the site and with that the collector road. There were early suggestions of, would there possibly be some way to do an underpass and the infrastructure and the sewer and water lines don't really allow that feature to be done, to take something under the street necessarily. We talked about and looked at moving it to other locations, but where as that could be done, one of the features of the plan was to have this be a focal point as you not only come down Audubon but as you then progress into the neighborhood. And blend that with some of the trail systems that we have that abut to the natural wetland and storm ponds that were created. So while there's going to be instances where people are going to be using the pedestrian pathways to get to the pool, we thought that this was the best siting for all considerations. It is going to be a stop intersection with median areas for people to rest as they progress across the street. And also with the traffic calming features of that street it' sdesigned to be 30 or 35 miles an hour street? So it's by design already designed to compliment pedestrian environment that we've been looking to create. McDonald: Any other questions? Papke: I'd like to chat a little bit about the round-a-bouts. This is the first incarnation of the plan that we've seen with the round-a-bout and you'll have to excuse me but a week or so ago I spent some vacation time in Bend, Oregon. A city that's been built up with about a dozen or so round-a-bouts so I had kind of first hand experience with it over several days. And one of the nice things about round-a-bouts is they can accommodate very nicely you know more than 2 or 3 or 4 roads coming into them. You can go quite high if you look at some of them in Paris for instance with dozen roadways. Did you consider, or would you consider perhaps, you know right now you have several roads corning in within a few hundred feet of the round-a-bout onto the new collector roadway here. Did you consider or would you consider perhaps terminating one of these at the round-a-bout? That would be a rather substantial configuration change and I suspect you're going to be very reluctant to jockey around your development to that extent. Just to accommodate one less intersection with a collector, but I have to ask the question. Whether it was considered or would be possible. Kevin Clark: This, certainly one of the biggest hurdles in the last few weeks to work with have been the alignment of the collector road. The introduction of the round-a-bouts was really provided by the city's consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates and looking at different varieties or different orientations based on, Kate showed you the picture of the. . . structure and distances between flood plain and all that and what would be the most prudent way to do that, and preserving wetlands and slopes, trees and everything else. And so the round-a-bout feature in earlier plans had, did not have that and showed the round-a-bout then as an element to be introduced. And it wasn't, I guess at that time with the engineering both internally and with the consultant, deemed to be a prudent location for the round-a-bout and they were using these 18 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 feature to allow for both the calming feature of it and then also the ability to have, make bends in the road at a few other locations and I think they are located here. One, first and down near the P in Peterson, where our project would go north and then the other one up to the north. Aanenson: The city kind of drove, or the consultant drove the design of that and so there's certain things that carne out in the AUAR that the developer has to accommodate, and one is that there needs to be a touch down point from here to Pioneer Trail. That was a recommendation so what that accomplishes is exactly what you're saying that's what I was trying to point out that that will also serve as another feeder street. This is the main thread through the project. The rest of it is development driven, and that's why I'm saving it. We're trying to work with the developers to find those tie in places so we get the round-a-bouts in the right spot for them to tie off to the collectors that go to the other spot. So to the best of our knowledge this appears to be the best spot. Again whether it straddles the property line again then Mr. Peterson will have to tie into that to tie down to Pioneer. Is that kind of what you're asking? Papke: Well, what I'm asking is how many, how many connections will there be into this round- a-bout? Is it, you know right now we see 2. Now when we look at the Sever Peterson property perhaps that's something, ifthe people who are, have the next proposal in front of us tonight maybe can start thinking about you know it would be silly to have a round-a-bout with just 3 streets coming into it. You'd like to see 4 or perhaps even more because that's how these things become quite efficient, but then they get bigger the more streets you have corning into them. Aanenson: Right. Well the goal is that this would be the feeder street, as this is. All streets corne to this street where it becomes a collector, such as this street here comes down to Pioneer. All the other streets would feed into that. We minimize the connection points onto the, yeah. Papke: Right. So how many roads are we talking about corning into the round-a-bout? Aanenson: Right now? Papke: Right now it's 2. Aanenson: One more. One more. Papke: So one more, so it'd be a total of 3. Aanenson: Correct. At this location, it's probably be 4. One going to the north. One going to the south. Again working with the Fox family to try to figure out where the best location is. There's a wetland here. To make sure that this works for them. Correct. Papke: Right. Because what I'm concerned with is, you know I would hate to see us have round-a-bouts just for the sake of having round-a-bouts. To have them be you know not a positive contribution to the functionality of the roadway. So you know I'd just like to see if we can maximize the utility of this round-a-bout and not you know, because it was late to the game. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Aanenson: Correct, and they're being kind of held hostage by that decision which we said from the beginning that that's being driven. I think that's why it's important that we give you an update on the 212 and more specific of the align. Again we have planned another meeting with the group to finalize the design end of July, first part of August and then we'll bring that to the City Council and to you. But I hear what your comments... McDonald: Any other questions Debbie? Mark? I've got a couple for you. Will there be an owners association within this development? Kevin Clark: Yes, there will be a master association. McDonald: Okay. And I know we've gone through a lot with colors and architecture and the look and everything. Will the owners association be responsible to kind of keep that so that, as far as colors that would be available to paint your houses or change, put fences in or begin to change things? Are they going to control that within reason? Kevin Clark: They're going to control that extremely because they, there are restrictive covenants and really the association oversees certainly the preservation and the long term viability of the community by it's capital plan for replacements, whether it be a landscaping or maintenance of buildings and such that those maintenance plans take into account again landscaping, garage door colors, things like that. So the association has really ultimate control over that and then there's an architectural review component of that group that if there was a decision to change it, I'm sure not unlike the first issue talked to you tonight, they would come back to the city and say does this meet with your, you know your zoning ordinance or something. McDonald: Okay. I really have no further questions and what I'd like to do is just say thank you. I know that you guys have come a long way and all this and it's changed quite a bit. Staff's done a remarkable job also and I'm glad we're able to do something that makes everybody happy. It's kind of a win/win situation and hopefully it will turn out that way and everybody will be very proud of this area so thank you very much. Kevin Clark: Thank you. Zorn: Jerry, could I ask a couple of questions? McDonald: You certainly may. Zorn: The pool area, will that, is there a playground area planned for that area right now? Kevin Clark: Not in the direct location of the pool area. We're looking at putting play equipment more on the north portion of the project. Zorn: Okay. Okay, thank you. Kevin Clark: Thank you. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 McDonald: Thank you. Now as a point of confusion for me, I believe this is still an open meeting. Aanenson: That's correct. McDonald: Okay, we just moved that forward. What I will do now is anyone out in the audience that wants to make comments, I would invite them up to the lectern and what I would ask again is state your name and address and address your comments to the commission and anyone wish to come forward? Okay, well seeing no one come forward, I will close the public meeting. Oh, just a second. Okay. Rick Dorsey: My name is Rick Dorsey. I have property as part of the AUAR district. 1551 Lyman Boulevard. Just have a couple concerns. One is dealing with the zoning change and just to understand what happens, when that is going to happen within the rest of the area. If that has an impact on any other properties. Number one. And I think there's still work we're doing with the east/west collector road which I think we can deal with that in the other meetings at this point, but really the primary question I have is, is there, if this is changed or not necessarily changed but if this goes as residential, the office industrial for the 2020 guideline is reduced and is that going to be made up in other parts of this development or just changed. That's my question. McDonald: I have to ask staff. Aanenson: Yes it may. That may change somewhere else. Rick Dorsey: So at this point in time what you're proposing is to change the comprehensive plan, is that what I'm hearing? Aanenson: No. It's guided either or. Rick Dorsey: No, like relative to the rest of the area. Aanenson: Not at this time. I say it may. Rick Dorsey: Well, and that's what I'm asking the question. Would that require a change in the comprehensive plan? Aanenson: Yes it would. I thought you were talking about this piece. Rick Dorsey: Okay, thank you. McDonald: Okay. Does anyone else wish to address the commission? Okay, seeing no one else standing up, what I will do is close the public meeting portion of this and I will come back to the council for comments. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 2005 Papke: I don't have much to say. I think, I'm just tickled pink that a project of this magnitude was able to come in with no variances. I think that's a credit to the developer and a credit to city staff. It's a pleasure to be able to review proposals like this that you know it's been a long, arduous process but we've come up with a pretty good results so I'm very, very supportive of this. McDonald: Deborah. Zorn: I too am very pleased with the products put forward here and the adjustments that have been made in responding to our feedback a few months ago. So pleased about that. I do remain concerned about the location and access to the pool and playground area and the bike path and sidewalks and such so if there's any room to continue to explore options, that would be, that'd be great. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: I'm in full support of this, and they worked really, really hard with staff and come in numerous times. It's really an example of what, how a developer should really come in and work and they've come to the Planning Commission a couple of different times. Work with us to you know taking our suggestions and incorporated them. Worked at a lot of issues in preserving wetlands. Bringing in a lot of trees. Your building design is innovative in a lot of ways. Really done a nice job and I fully support this. McDonald: Thank you. Debbie. Larson: I'm pretty much with everyone else said. Looks like a great project and I'm in support of it. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Same. McDonald: And I guess I'll just finish up, again I want to thank everybody that's been involved in this. There are a couple of issues that have come up but I have full confidence that you'll all be able to work through them. This whole thing about the pool and crossing, I think you know we never really know how things are going to work until they're actually there and I think by having an owners association and the fact that the builder and developer here is very much willing to listen to people, I have every confidence you'll be able to solve the problem and I think by designing these streets so that there's a lot of calming in there, all of that will help too. So I'm very pleased with this. I mean I remember when it was first brought to us. There were a lot of questions and issues and I'm just amazed that you didn't come back with a bunch of variances and good job on the retaining wall and everything else so thank you. With that I will entertain a motion from the commission. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Keefe: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request for rezoning from A2 to PUD-R, site plan review with subdivision of 6 blocks and 69 buildings, including 446 units, 3 outlots? Aanenson: That's correct. Keefe: A, Band C which represent the Overlay District and 7 common lots of 91.02 acres, conditional uses for the development in the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alteration of the flood plain and a wetland alteration permit as stated below with conditions 1 through 84, is that right? Aanenson: Yes. Keefe: 1 through 84. McDonald: Okay. Do I have a second? Zorn: Second. McDonald: Okay, I have a second. Keefe moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request for rezoning from A2 to PUD-R, site plan review with subdivision of 6 blocks and 69 buildings including 446 units, 3 Outlots A, B & C which represent the Overlay District and 7 common lots of 91.02 acres, conditional uses for the development in the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alteration of the Flood Plain and a Wetland Alteration Permit, as stated below: Planning Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. Provide design plan the shows the color and architectural detail for each unit on the site. Engineering Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Before site grading commences, the three existing buildings on the property must be razed. 3. The final plat plans must incorporate the changes shown on Westwood Professional Service's July 12,2005 sketch showing the revised layout of the east-west corridor, the roundabout, the additional street connection from the development to the east-west corridor, and the revised building type and orientation in the southeast comer of the plat. The developer may be required to plat the west Y2 right of way for the north-south segment of the collector road and the roundabout. 4. The eastern intersections of Street D to Street B must be revised so that the streets intersect at 900. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 5. On-street parking may be used to satisfy the parking requirement with the following stipulations: a. On-street parking is prohibited between November 1 and April 1 between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., consistent with Section 12-16 of the City Code: Winter Parking Regulations. b. Credit for on-street parking is not allowed along the curve of the public streets. 6. The developer's engineer must work with Peterson's Bluff's engineer to ensure that the proposed grading on each property matches at the property line and to eliminate and/or decrease the height of retaining walls to the maximum extent possible. 7. Ground slopes shall not exceed 3H:1V. 8. The final grading plan must show the proposed top and bottom of wall elevations for all retaining walls. 9. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and require a building permit. 10. The existing driveway at Audubon Road must be removed. 11. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL. 12. All of the proposed house pads must have a rear yard elevation at least three feet above the HWL of the adjacent ponds. 13. Storm sewer calculations must be submitted with the final plat application. The storm sewer must be designed to accommodate a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. 14. The last public storm water structure that is road-accessible prior to discharging to a water body must have a 3-foot sump. 15. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds. 16. The style of home and lowest floor elevation must be noted on the final grading plan. 17. Blanket drainage and utility easements are required over all common lots, however the following storm sewer segments shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association: a. Northeast and west of Lot 5, Block 1, b. Within the private drives to Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 Block 1, 24 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 c. The connection between the private drives to Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 Block 1 and the public lateral within Street D, d. South of Lots 10 and 11, Block 2, e. South of Lots 15-17, Block 2, f. South of Lots 11-13, Block 5, g. North and west of Lot 13, Block 5, and h. West of and between Lots 4 and 5, Block 6. 18. The plat must be signed by a Land Surveyor registered in the State of Minnesota. 19. A minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance must be shown on the plans. 20. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. 21. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. 22. 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. 23. Utility services for the buildings must be shown on the final utility plan. Sanitary services must be 6-inch PVC and water service must be I-inch copper, Type K. 24. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 25. Upon project completion, the developer must submit inspection/soil reports certifying that the private streets were built to a 7-ton design. 26. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also 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. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. 27. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required prior to construction, including but not limited to MPCA, Department of Health, Carver County and Watershed District. 28. The benchmark used to complete the site survey must be shown on the grading plan. 29. Intersection neckdowns are limited to public street intersections only. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Park and Recreation Recommended Conditions of Approval 30. Full park dedication fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of requiring parkland dedication. 31. The trails on both the north and south sides of collector road "A" are widened to 10 feet. 32. The internal or private trail north of Block 1 be carefully planned to allow convenient access to the Bluff Creek Corridor. 33. Other internal or private trails connecting residents to amenities within the PUD be enhanced. Wetland Alteration Permit Recommended Conditions of Approval 34. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). 35. The applicant shall work with staff to address comments received from the reviewing agencies, including conducting MnRAMs for impacted and replacement wetlands for use in sequencing flexibility for impacts on wetlands A, D, E, J and L. Details regarding the stabilization of areas upslope of mitigation area M2 shall be included in the replacement plan. More detailed plans for mitigation areas Ml and M2, including cross-sections, shall be submitted. The applicant shall consider restorations of wetlands A, F and G for new wetland credit. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to or concurrent with final plat approval and prior to wetland impacts occurring. 36. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species, particularly hybrid cattail, purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. 37. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around all wetlands, with the exception of Basin C. A wetland buffer 20 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Basin C. 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 must pay the City $20 per sign. 38. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback should be shown on the plans. 39. The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including 26 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of credi 1. 40. Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water infrastructure. 41. A complete Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be in place before applying for and receiving NPDES construction permit coverage from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 42. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Tvpe of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 43. Clay diversions shall be used to divert runoff around the wetlands on the south side of the development to the temporary sediment basins downslope of them. 44. Chanhassen Type 2, Heavy Duty silt fence shall be used around all wetlands, streams, creeks, bluffs and ravines; Chanhassen type 1 silt fence shall be used around the remaining areas. 45. 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 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (dewatering permit), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Water Resources Subdivision Recommended Conditions of Approval 46. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). 47. The applicant shall work with staff to address comments received from the reviewing agencies, including conducting MnRAMs for impacted and replacement wetlands for use in sequencing flexibility for impacts on wetlands A, D, E, J and L. Details regarding the stabilization of areas upslope of mitigation area M2 shall be included in the replacement plan. More detailed plans for mitigation areas MI and M2, including cross-sections, shall be submitted. The applicant shall consider restorations of wetlands A, F and G for new wetland credit. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to or concurrent with final plat approval and prior to wetland impacts occurring. 48. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species, particularly hybrid cattail, purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. 49. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around all wetlands, with the exception of Basin C. A wetland buffer 20 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Basin C. 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 must pay the City $20 per sign. 50. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback should be shown on the plans. 51. The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of credit. 52. Bluff areas (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). 53. No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures shall meet the 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 54. A copy of the LOMA shall be submitted to the City prior to alterations within the floodplain. In lieu of a LOMA, the applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit for alterations within the floodplain. 55. The developer shall determine the base flood elevation (lOO-year) to ensure that the structures will meet all floodplain elevation requirements. 56. The grade stabilization structure at the north end of Basin A is in disrepair and shall be replaced. Before the development incorporates this structure into the permanent storm water management system, the structure shall be assessed and a plan proposed and approved by the city for the repair or replacement of the structure, as well as long term maintenance. The applicant shall work with the property owner to the north to get permission to repair or replace the structure. 57. Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water infrastructure. 58. A complete Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be in place before applying for and receiving NPDES construction permit coverage from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 59. Minimization of the amount of exposed soils on the site is needed; phasing of the development shall limit the disturbed areas open. 60. All emergency overflows need temporary and permanent stabilization and shall be shown in a detail or on the SWPPP. Energy dissipation (riprap and geotextile fabric) shall be installed within 24 hours of installation of flared end sections and outlet structures. 61. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3:1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 62. Temporary sediment basins shall be constructed and could be located in the proposed permanent storm water pond locations. If Pond A does not get excavated prior to disturbing the contributing area; a temporary basin shall be constructed approximately in the areas of 29 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Street D and Lot 5, Block 3. Temporary basins shall be labeled on the SWPPP. A detail shall be provided for the temporary outlet structures for the temporary basins. Clay berms shall be used to temporarily divert runoff from the construction site to the temporary basins prior to discharge. Additionally the clay diversions shall be used to divert runoff around the wetlands on the south side of the development to the temporary sediment basins downslope of them. 63. Chanhassen Type 2, Heavy Duty silt fence shall be used around all wetlands, streams, creeks, bluffs and ravines; Chanhassen type 1 silt fence shall be used around the remaining areas. The inlet control (for area inlets, not curbside) detail shall be mono-mono heavy duty machine sliced silt fence with 4 foot maximum spacing for metal T -posts. A rock berm placed around the silt fence shall be at least 2 feet wide and 1 foot high of 1 Yz -inch clear rock. Wimco-type inlet controls shall be installed in all inlets through out the project within 24 hours of inlet installation. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 64. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $288,050. 65. 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 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (dewatering permit), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. Forestry Recommended Conditions of Approval 66. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation. 67. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. 68. A turf plan shall be submitted to the city indicating the location of sod and seeding areas. Inspections and Fire Marshal Recommended Conditions of Approval 69. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, 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. 70. There are a number of additional fire hydrants required and some will be re-Iocated. Discussion has been made with Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, to their relocation. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 71. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 72. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 73. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 74. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. The Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal will determine which streets will need naming. 75. "No parking fire lane" signs will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs to be installed. 76. Submit cul-de-sac design dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. Building Recommended Conditions of Approval 77. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. 78. Buildings over 8,500 sq. ft. in size must be protected with an automatic fire protection system. The State of Minnesota is in the process of revising Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code regarding fire protection systems. It is not yet entirely clear how these changes will affect residential construction. It is important that the developer meet with the Inspections Division prior to final design to determine what ramifications, if any, the new requirements will have on the project. 79. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names and an addressing plan for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. 80. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. 81. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 82. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 83. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 84. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. Kevin Clark: Chair and commission, thank you very much. Appreciate your confidence in us and we're looking forward to continuing to contribute to this kind of feedback we get nationally and locally and we're glad to be part of it in Chanhassen so thank you very much. Appreciate it. McDonald: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 PIONEER TRAIL. PETERSON BLUFF. APPLICANT..T. EDWIN CHADWICK. LLC. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-20. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Okay, who wants to start? Anyone have any questions? Keefe: Kate, I've got a question. In regards to the land use, 2020 Land Use Plan. With this change we're going to see a reduction in the planned office industrial and an increase in the residential, low density residential. Can you tell us sort of over a period of time what happens in regards to if we get a little bit out of whack. What is the potential down side to it? And then it's kind of early in the process where we'd have a fair amount of time to make up the variances but what happens if we don't get it? Aanenson: Well one of the things that we're working on right now, which we have guided that we believe will probably go more in the industrial, will be the old 212 corridor. We're looking at that. We're doing the corridor study as 212 becomes 312 and the old 212 is turning over to the County, the engineering department and planning staff is looking at an access corridor and how we provide good access for that because that we see also as a office industrial corridor. As we update the comprehensive plan we'll be looking at those pieces. We just found out today we did get funding from the State to study the 101. One of the major problems we have in the city is going north to south. Bob's...tomorrow with the 41 river crossing. That's a heated issue. You know whether that's actually going to go to provide access again getting people over the river, so we're looking at that and how that provides access for some of that southern area to provide additional industrial. So that's something we'll be looking at. We'll be updating the comp plan. It has to be done in 2008. We'll be starting on that process next year. Kind of looking at taking a tally of where we are to date. Are some of our assumptions valid? Invalid and a lot of it has to do hopefully when you look at the tax, how the state's, and that's fluid right now. Industrial's softer than multifamily. Multifamily takes a little bit more so that's always a moving target too so we'll be looking at that and giving.. .as we move forward. 32