The URL can be used to link to this page

05-15-96 Agenda and Packet __1111111111111111.11111 FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY,MAY 15, 1996, 7:00 P.M. R naer K nntsnn CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Request for preliminary plat of Lot 51, Pleasant View and a portion of vacated Rook Place right-of-way (1.08 acres) into 2 single family lots of 19,478 sq. ft. and 27,659 sq. ft. and a variance to the right-of-way width requirement on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6630 Horseshoe Curve, Rook Place, Michael Lynch. 2. Request for preliminary plat of Lot 1, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor into two single family lots on property zoned RSF, and located at 8591 Tigua Circle, Rice Lake Manor Estates, Barry McKee. 3. Request for site plan review of a 10,000 square foot retail facility on 1.06 acres of property zoned BH,Highway Business District and located at 501 West 78th Street, Hiway 5 Centre, Roman Roos/Mike Ramsey. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION 4. Villages on the Ponds. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m.as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not appear to be possible,the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. C I TY 0 F PC DATE: May 15, 1996 \\1 CUA 'I1 A s S N CC DATE: June 10, 1996 1 . CASE #: 96-9 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat approval to subdivide 1.08 acre parcel into two single family lots of 19,478 sq. ft., and 27,659 sq. ft., and a variance to the right- '''. of-way width, Rook Place Q LOCATION: 6630 Horseshoe Curve V a. APPLICANT: Michael Lynch Q.. 6630 Horseshoe Curve Q Chanhassen,MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RSF,Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 1.08 acres DENSITY: 1.8 Units per Acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF;Residential Single Family S - RSF; Residential Single Family E- RSF; Residential Single Family I- W- RSF;Residential Single Family 0 • WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water are available to the site. LLL PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains a single family residence, a shed, and a �--• garage. The site slopes to the southwest. Mature trees of different species are scattered throughout the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density L ill vrt ••'=.m��mai E.�=y' � .„,....,....,sl Pb usEy ''�" �� .�.1:s�sr�;s�-3:.�; ;,_„ ..� ,a_ ,• ..oh vaik stw-f 1, `. jw w t X N IlitinV1110 � J ..0A 4,VP4= - lit . _ r . ale)! A sil101inktialr. � r in VIP' lt 0-1 fietz, AA 4.4 *21 :east *ivy 11,7161f410111111 e� ♦ w1a1sly��! C� �' h `:yam �r'� iii ti ♦ 44111-1f44, o o f (09,4 �y --' L• �moo a a a _I 5`F -A� �� : o Ka^ • :;je 7. .81: o; "lir;10 (f)I 5:1111ai 1140 iligia soiNt-kit: . s =:ice op it4144, `�� 1 . 1 s� J Al. ilei r1. 1 ♦S46.: 'INIMI :9' A iw oa 11 • 7 t) .14 010111119111111111.1111: 4t- y� �� .:1•1\ , — cot„ V4 i`!4 ,� nze i!moms weiirwari•if 4 4 ' .sis-Ti,01,4.1 tof -(11.°1- 0� �40 I a' r-1 4rzaicr *111 . te - llik A I' " Mil _ 1191.... 7 `■ 1„4,111 . .i ► f1 , ♦ J , 4 =, , � ■ �'= ifi; NikrEh II abv QVd kAdgig_ 0 ij _. r'Ma i� :' � IV te t,+ 1 it la.k, !i 0,2* v)a -- mur eroP omt L . .. , zi _.... sti Hp imiii Et.;u ..---. ..-- • e I. . - ... ifiniWWil . Ili,grA v a 4 . 45 1 murmil" ' f'4 AIR er14.44 011141umultit ingeila ''Sjilk iftliklit:11.- 7,,,,, •r-�;r.thi.�� fit' 1i��. tu 14 4 1101 lk i f7 sir.' ,,il i.,)w_etiv,. ...alattliAtiit,,,„,„..,,,,, a„D ow [ m i 1 . , - 1. , Ail No Ir.717). iv i iti t T.i.i.-1-,-.7.4 Allilltbs: -14tasretli :4411, '-' ::: .`' 4 ' ini., lea aid � 1 � aijo ' ��. ,'m imge ' L 0 ; .�is 31h—lr, � '� iop wei iiiii , �- pp i 1 lel* III aim • v I 1 Rook Place May 15, 1996 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide 1.08 acre parcel into two single family lots. Lot 1 will be available for future construction. The site is bordered by Horseshoe Curve on the east and west. Single family homes are located along the north and south of the property. The site will be accessed via Horseshoe Curve. Horseshoe Curve has a 30 foot right-of-way. The City ordinance requires a 60 foot right-of-way. Since this is an established neighborhood, staff believes the applicant should dedicate an additional 10 feet, allowing for a total of 40 foot right-of-way. The proposed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The site generally slopes to the southwest. The natural drainage way will be maintained. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that park and trail fees be paid in lieu of park land. Staff believes that this plat request is a reasonable one and consistent with guidelines established by the city Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. We find it to be well designed. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions as outlined in the report. BACKGROUND On March 22, 1910, the subdivision of Pleasant View was signed and recorded. It consisted of 52 single family lots. Rook Place, which is a street that was never improved, located north of the subject property, was vacated and a portion of the street was given back to the owner of the subject property (Mr. Lynch). The current application is to divide Lot 51, Pleasant View and a portion of Rook Place into two lots. SUBDIVISION The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.08 acre site into 2 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.8 units per acre. Both lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square foot of area. Lot 1 is proposed to have an area of 19,478 sq. ft., and Lot 2 will have a total area of 27,659 sq. ft. There is an existing garage on proposed Lot 1 and a shed on proposed Lot 2. Both structures must be moved. The shed is a nonconforming structure since it is built on the side property line. This nonconformity will increase through the subdivision by not giving the structure a rear yard setback. The shed must be located 10 feet from the side lot line and five feet from the rear lot line. The garage is proposed to be removed. This action must take place prior to recording of the plat. Rook Place May 15, 1996 Page 3 Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. PARK AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission recommended full park and trail fees be paid as a condition of approval. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE-RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Home Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 sq. ft. 90' 125' 30'front/rear 10' sides Lot 1 19,478 sq. ft. 311.19 125' 30' front 10' sides Lot 2 27,659 sq. ft. 147.98 142.7' 30' front/rear 10' sides WETLANDS There appears to be no wetlands on-site GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site sheet drains in a southwesterly and southeasterly direction. Some of the slopes on the site are fairly steep. Very little grading will be necessary to construct a dwelling on the new lot. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control and tree preservation plan should be required at time of building permit issuance for City review and approval. Drainage from the site appears to be minimal. With construction of the home,the neighborhood drainage pattern will have to be maintained. Drainage swales are proposed around the rear of the house. Depending on the exact home placement,these drainage swales may or may not be needed. These items will be further reviewed at time of building permit issuance. Rook Place May 15, 1996 Page 4 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEES In accordance with City Ordinance, each new subdivision is subject to Surface Water Management Fees (SWMP fees). The ordinance exempts existing households from this charge. The newly created lot will be subject to surface water quality and quantity fees in the amount of $800.00 and$1,980.00 per acre,respectively. These fees are due and payable at time of final plat recording. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the lot from Horseshoe Curve. The existing home is currently connected to City sewer and water as well. Depending on previous assessments, the new lot may be subject to sewer and water hookup fees. STREETS The streets in this area are fairly old and substandard in comparison to today's standards. The right-of-way width is currently 30 feet wide which is significantly deficient compared to today's 60-foot right-of-way standard. However, staff believes that an additional 10 feet of right-of-way should be dedicated with the final plat on both Horseshoe Curve streets to attempt to bring the subdivision into conformance. In the future these streets will be upgraded and additional right- of-way will also then be needed. The additional right-of-way will not prohibit the building on the lot given the setback requirements. BUILDING PADS Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevation, entry floor elevation (not top of block) and garage floor elevation is required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed. DEMOLITION PERMITS Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Rook Place May 15, 1996 Page 5 LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has submitted tree inventory and removal plans for the proposed one-lot subdivision. According to the applicant, existing tree canopy coverage is 42%or 19890 sq. ft. For low density residential development with a 42%coverage, the required minimum coverage required after construction is 35%or 16,467 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing to remove 3,420 sq. ft. leaving exactly 35% coverage. However, after inspecting the site and reviewing development plans it appears that more trees will be removed than what is depicted on grading plans. At least six trees are very close to, one is within,proposed grading limits. The applicant will need to show plans for preserving these trees. If the trees are removed,the applicant will exceed the minimum canopy coverage required for the site and be required to replace inches lost at a rate of 1.2 times the canopy area lost. Preservation of the trees has not been adequately addressed by the applicant and must be discussed before city approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Rook Place Subdivision # 96-9, as shown on the plans dated April 13, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat 10 feet of additional right-of-way for Horseshoe Curve. 2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required for Lot 1, Block 1 at time of building permit application. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management Fees accordingly to local ordinances. Currently,the single-family rate is $2,780 per acre. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 4. Full park and trail fees be paid in accordance with City Ordinances. 5. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the edge of all grading limits near trees before grading can begin. Applicant will submit to the city proposed tree fencing locations. 6. The applicant must submit tree preservation plans or new canopy coverage calculations taking into account the additional loss of at least six trees. Reforestation may be required. Rook Place May 15, 1996 Page 6 7. The existing garage shall be removed prior to recording of the final plat. The shed setbacks must also be brought into compliance prior to recording of the plat. 8. Building Official conditions: a. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading or construction on the property." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application 2. Public hearing and property owners list. 3. Memo from Dave Hempel,Assistant City Engineer,dated May 7, 1996. 4. Memo from Mark Littfin,Fire Marshal,dated April 25, 1996. 5. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official, dated May 6, 1996. 6. Preliminary plat dated received April 19, 1996. ITEM 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Michael Lynch OWNER: Michael Lynch ADDRESS: 6630 Horseshoe Curve ADDRESS: same Chanhassen, MN 55317 " TELEPHONE (Day time) 944-3666 TELEPHONE: 474-5642 • 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11 Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 75 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review /( Notification Signs I�j 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost*' $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP d-zict) 0440 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. .x Subdivision$ 150 TOTAL FEE $ 100.00 775 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8W' X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING SCoYY1 E_ PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION E REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION <U REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. Signature of Applicant 1 Date Signature of Fee Owner J 'Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. ITEM 3 June 14, 1988 Michael E. &Gloria J. Lynch 6630 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Your Owner' s Duplicate Certificate of Title No. 8136 or. Lot 51, Pleasant View is now complete. This is the only document you will receive which verifies your ownership to the real este and should be kept in YOUR possession. Please pick it up at the County Recorder's Office, Courthouse, 600 East 4th Street, Chaska, Minnesota, between the hours of 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. , Monday through Friday. If you prefer, we will mail your Certificate of Title to you. Just return this letter along with a check for $2.00 to cover the cost for certified nail. Please include your correct mailing address. If you should have any questions, please call 448-3435 Ext. 228. Carl W. (Kelly) Hanson, Jr. County Recorder/Registrar of Titles By: Ij " T ^0 . iZt U C1/4; At .ati:iitiailieh..., N p i i g s in mil c ti d CO is- (13 1----..r,.-_. „s^4” / r...4 •r q 5 .0 . • .);.• . 4-, 11.1 E g LI ,-1 c I—. r j • h:Z1 ..E: ..c La \ r 0 ...„4 ry > �, r ° C a .44c 7 '-. , pti C tk% • cr. i:9°I'llij 61 .f: . ...4.,,, • . tril ,z\,,.‘*.s,7 , / :,. 0 eac.‘illist-_,-: .7 ® " a 4:1 .itit e. 0 Ki cr) Ci Z R Q 1 = Tsi S , -z ...„ .!7 , K r^t \�\ LaC— ci4si, ;‘ ) - d \ NJ g4 • •Lii) l's':, .4Z\. cl •5 ICA � �R7 g , �'. ITEM 5 Ron Harvieux - 6605 Horseshoe Curve John Danielson - 6607 " R.P. Brozovich - 6609 " " Thomas Gilman - 6613 James Keiper - 6615 Lad Conrad - 6625 Harold Dahl - 6631 " " Phil Issacson - 6633 Doug Bitney - 6645 r, „ Frank Kuzma - 6651 Evelyn Albinson - 6655 " Tom Hau - 6661 T.R. Johnson - 6663 John Cunningham - 6665 " David Kopiske - 6675 Terry Rosen - 6677 J. Ryan - 6685 " Helen Hartman - 6687 "For Sale" - 365 Pleasantview Rd. Robert Hanson - 6620 Horseshoe Curve Mike Lynch - 6630 Scott Gamble - 6640 " " 1 1 • _ i" • i -•. N. J 1 i •� / % \ • ¢ s 4 1 •". .'%. °s 4.4 AO: lb% ,i' it •.r v IP AN - y,di. 41*,-. 4t- ., r� 'el 4. a o i1• .. • ,vq 1 _ C ► `E48.. v yi I /' `fit Y 1.41' +• 1 1,.._. i . • / It 0. . r .• : s1 ♦• 3ti' . r's �� 4. ♦` ` t y14► a .... ., .... „ lot . r C i, fig. �/ f7M r • p. ,• 10 '4 i.lk j1 . •, a n t Jo •144 '+ `, _ �.s •O i . ill IP, J., IU , fy:.,: h... i tA li \ k- . . 4i J3 J, : , '•• • 41\�•• _ • •: rir ` r.. s* / r ` • i SRR; t ^♦`t4 .‘11\4351. ir.r �♦ /1 r r . go 11. Ir 161 .. .' II �� ; Counts Auditor •."1. •1 \. laity-T.f Carver aate of 4M+nnesc `• v •�Yw s pa! r !� ��, i ty s'tJ ',ter �' .0- VA� •0.•.P w 4. 091110 ."-• ��,,w. �I �i.�•�r ' X11 NOTICE OF PUBLIC ��, fir‘.444 aril! HEARING .0 a • d �.� PLANNING COMMISSION ' ♦ 4 , <Noxth MEETING ,lit� ��t . , , ,, Wednesday, MAY 15, 1996 e_ 4 !4 'LOQ' �� Lek. at 7:00 p.m. ��; ) ,�' .�. 44 park City Hall Council Chambers k�• 4•: .o e, K 690 Coulter Drive JJ.I y ,:,r``` �l�s; Carver `` Project: Rook Place A Beach Lot,: �' 1111: ��s7 Park t i Developer: Michael Lynch "a•" .- :; _ :.V�-spa Lotus Location: 6630 Horseshoe Curve Ma� 4Zrgar 1111` ii JP* Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant,Michael Lynch, is requesting preliminary plat of Lot 51, Pleasant View and a portion of vacated Rook Place right-of-way (1.08 acres) into 2 single family lots of 19,478 sq. ft. and 27,659 sq. ft. and a variance to the right-of-way width requirement on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6630 Horseshoe Curve,Rook Place. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments:If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 2, 1996. 5/i /q4, Ron Harvieux John Danielson R. P. Brozovich 6605 Horseshore Curve 6607 Horseshoe Curve 6609 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas Gilman James Keiper Ladd Conrad 6613 Horseshoe Curve 6615 Horseshoe Curve 6625 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Harold Dahl Phil Issacson Doug Bitney 6631 Horseshoe Curve 6633 Horseshoe Curve 6645 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Frank Kuzma Evelyn Albinson Tom Hau 6651 Horseshoe Curve 6655 Horseshoe Curve 6661 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 T. R. Johnson John Cunningham David Kopiske 6663 Horseshoe Curve 6665 Horseshoe Curve 6675 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Terry Rosen J. Ryan Helen Hartman 6677 Horseshoe Curve 6685 Horseshoe Curve 6687 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner Robert Hanson Mike Lynch 365 Pleasant View Road 6620 Horseshoe Curve 6630 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Scott Gamble 6640 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard&Jill Valentine Jeff& Judi Kvilhaug Sandra Olson 6614 Horseshoe Curve 6681 Horseshoe Curve 6691 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Charles Hurd Keith Obermeyer Richard & Kathleen Peck 6695 Horseshoe Curve 6697 Horseshoe Curve 6690 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ,! CITY OF ,ye„, CHANHASSEN„t -, '.� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner H L. FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: May 7, 1996 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Rook Place - File No. 96-14 LUR Upon review of the preliminary plat documents prepared by Schoell & Madson dated April 13, 1995,revised September 8, 1995,I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site sheet drains in a southwesterly and southeasterly direction. Some of the slopes on the site are fairly steep. Very little grading will be necessary to construct a dwelling on the new lot. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control and tree preservation plan should be required at time of building permit issuance for City review and approval. Drainage from the site appears to be minimal. With construction of the home the neighborhood drainage pattern will have to be maintained. Drainage swales are proposed around the rear of the house. Depending on the exact home placement,these drainage swales may or may not be needed. These items will be further reviewed at time of building permit issuance. Surface Water Management Fees - In accordance with City Ordinance,each new subdivision is subject to Surface Water Management Fees (SWMP fees). The ordinance exempts existing households from this charge. The newly created lot will be subject to surface water quality and quantity fees in the amount of$800.00 and$1,980.00 per acre, respectively. These fees are due and payable at time of final plat recording. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the lot from Horseshoe Curve. The existing home is currently connected to City sewer and water as well. Depending on previous assessments, the new lot may be subject to sewer and water hookup fees. Rook Place Preliminary Plat Review May 7, 1996 Page 2 STREETS The streets in this area are fairly old and substandard in comparison to today's standards. The right-of-way width is currently 30 feet wide which is significantly deficient compared to today's 60-foot right-of-way standard. However, staff believes that an additional 10 feet of right-of-way should be dedicated with the final plat on both Horseshoe Curve streets to attempt to bring the subdivision into conformance. In the future these streets will be upgraded and additional right-of- way will also then be needed. The additional right-of-way will not prohibit the building on the lot given the setback requirements. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat 10 feet of additional right-of-way for Horseshoe Curve. 2. A detailed grading,drainage,erosion control and tree removal plan will be required for Lot 1, Block 1 at time of building permit application. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management Fees accordingly to local ordinances. Currently,the single-family rate is $2,780 per acre. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. ktm g:\enedave\pc\rook.ppr CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 y (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: April 25, 1996 RE: Request for preliminary plat of Lot 51, Pleasant View and a portion of vacated Rook Place right-of-way (1.08 acres) into two single family lots of 19,478 sq. ft. and 27,659 sq. ft and a variance to the right-of-way with requirement on property zoned RSF, residential single family and located at 6630 Horseshoe Curve, Michael Lynch, Rook Place. Planning Case: 96-9 SUB I reviewed the preliminary plat subdivision for the above project. In order to comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinances/policy requirements. The preliminary plat subdivision review is based on the available information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are. submitted,the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. No comments or concerns at this time. g:/safety/mI/96-9 CITY OF . 0,- .._ - ,0 CBANBASSEN : __,.. ` 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ` (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff,Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman,Building Official ' k DATE: May 6, 1996 SUBJECT: 96-9 SUB (6630 Horseshoe Curve,Michael Lynch,Rook Place) Background: I was asked to review the plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, APR 19 1996, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. Below are an analysis and recommendations from the Inspections Division for the proposed project. Analysis: Building Pads. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason,proposed lowest level floor elevation,entry floor elevation(not top of block)and garage floor elevation is required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations(FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed. Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. Sharmin Al-Jaff May 6, 1996 Page 2 1. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 2. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading or construction on the property. enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum G;\safety\sak\memos\pl an\rookpl . ,„ ...), CITYOF _ CHANHASSEN ,„ , „, ,,,,h .:,., .. . . . .. ,te.. -, ,- `� 690 COULTER DRIVE • PD. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 / _;;a (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN P UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building • CHANHA4-,_ DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might he helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. tri,)or RL) Designates Front lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with tite basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to appro:dmately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. TU SE- R V. EWO� wo / Lp\ -, or RLO ________t_.i — -- `� -41111111 [- 1 Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. Is t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER C I TY O F P.C. DATE: 5-15-96 C.C. DATE: 6-10-96 CHANHASSEN CASE: 96-4 Site Plan - �-� BY: Al-Jaff:v • STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for the construction of a one story, Multi-Tenant Retail Building with an area of 10,000 square feet I LOCATION: North of Highway 5, West of Great Plains Boulevard, South of West 79th Street and East of the Chanhassen Inn V APPLICANT : Roman Roos Mike Ramsey Q� 1727 Green Crest Drive 22173 Harsdale Drive Q„. Victoria, MN 55386 Farmington Hills,MI 48335 Q (612)829-3848 (810)615-0959 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business District ACREAGE: 1.06 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N-West 79th Street S -Highway 5 E-Holiday and Great Plains Boulevard,Highway Business W- Chanhassen Inn/Highway Business QSEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is fairly level, previously occupied by the Prairie w House Restaurant Building. The building was demolished _ between April 3-10, 1996 to prepare the site for future development. 2000 LAND USE: Commercial 31 0 AA IAi j,, 4 .v- No Y s sI 2„,..,..y .116"0„,--.I.E.-: illizos Sa.,1,1; ""ilig47 141 . 110‘ la 14111P - -;04111.. r.4 a iew404 W1411X1 1. .m -,,,, -. A,tl,: 4 ...... Gre,sea ,- 11, l6iH1unis0a.,♦ 1 NNt,wAdi tiry i-lm6.ffries I�ulnaa� park :, ♦ ,, . ,„t ti -`t, 11111111gc. ''. 444110 it Elts .4"411444I41.‘ pe .' 41*WI tik mtta, •-titkil 4211k Vi la 3�� 15 410 1I■■ NEU\ 1IS -, w. .0 `moo IVO *$V if -- Wir" VAS IN nrAvoLgit .,,v sr-112, As, ..444V111 do WI MOW i !../170,.. w 0,f, dik ,..___AA .' .0.. :,4-a pa:, Intl,r410. A I',do ___.• Eall it" ii - Nips Lir • 14 "4 '4' .41iAlli ----, -. wm -03 r ..... , ..• " rill ElltaV 4741/4-4111117,„411471. lel 1111,\ :wrfAlt *‘4•11 . iimalnroi,ralina . . omis _..-A, -A— E isi I I rick Witt ft ‘',V'.' ,,-3 11.as ' ��`N�MEW N.'14 • 114 zg,fit AV V ag, S'I1t . (5) IP 22 ovir. 141 Flo . 0. ---- -- i-Lm-g;...-x.i,ri4t.gi, 'i° "' ' .- .a,r _.v �� ; IIfIIIIlffll !!' !'I; 1 :• milli �L i „.„ 4 1;! !1-, i-----i-i ouster 0 1 e 's,a mill p ._ 4,76-...1,, ,..._--./ __,- ..,ate., --,s..-.....•..,._, __ ..-i--i-- :'IY.fiili 11111 11 1 ,T.,•.:-__- ------, -,4110 -Nikal ,2 �� 00 -La�eDr�° C� ��irn� i14e1L Chanhas �� :; ,e,,,e„, ______(� _'11111111 A �� , �, J1 $stat jig ■II° , Mini P- ,74.,,,,„,,,,. State Hw 5 . -�,,,,. r 7 . eC V4e. MP 10P- pLY le L 1 7 ,;' /� dir apt ev is '', L. a ?�g. �. y,44,,Atovrig � : if v. ;u11A 0 1101rilif Rice Marsh y / Lake Lark . `` ;vas Lake Susant. Rice ,mom No 4' 7 arsh Lake •1/Pwilt•' L" . Nif: - ?.0. 64 .--" IkV"Aell 4.4tf, '44ii.01. c:, '-. = coco i 2 iir,T.. ..gm. , .... ,,,,,,, ,... .... ,.:. . .,.;_ c c ,. a. . „ 'K'aeMand Trail Highway 5 Centre May 15, 1996 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY There applicant is requesting site plan review approval for the construction of a one story, multi- tenant retail building with an area of 10,000 square feet. It is proposed to be occupied by Bruegger's Bagel, a coffee shop, an optometrist, Dominos Pizza, and a sporting goods store. The site is zoned BH, Highway Business District and bordered by West 79th Street to the north, Highway 5 to the south, Holiday Service Station and Great Plains Boulevard to the east, and Chanhassen Inn to the west. The site was the location of the Prairie House Restaurant. It was demolished in April of 1996. The lot area for the site is 1.06 acres. The site is visible directly from Highway 5 and has full access from West 79th Street. Staff has been working with the applicant for approximately three months. Discussions have taken place in regard to the Highway 5 overlay district and the image that needs to be projected such as screening of the parking lot and higher quality materials and design for the building. The site plan for the multi-tenant retail building was designed accordingly. It is well designed and staff believes it will enhance the image of Highway 5. They are proposing to utilize rock face block with brick accents along the base of the building and columns and stucco. Service doors are proposed for those tenants that would need them along the east elevation of the building. Vehicular parking is proposed along the west portion of the site. This area is in the highway corridor which uses the underlying district for setbacks. The parking as proposed meets the Hwy. 5 zoning district requirement. Screening of the parking and service areas need to be enhanced. One unusual situation associated with this application concerns the hard surface coverage. This issue is discussed in further detail in the General Site Plan/Architecture section of the report. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the Highway 5 corridor's image. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan, without variances with conditions outlined in the staff report. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The proposed one story, multi-tenant retail building, with an area of 10,000 square feet each, will be situated parallel to and north of Highway 5. It is proposed to be occupied by Bruegger's Bagel, a coffee shop,an optometrist,Dominos Pizza,and a sporting goods store. The site is zoned BH, Highway Business District and bordered by West 79th Street to the north,Highway 5 to the south, Holiday service station and Great Plains Boulevard to the east, and Chanhassen Inn to the west. Access to the building is proposed from West 79th Street. Parking will be located west of the Highway 5 Centre May 15, 1996 Page 3 proposed building. A meandering berm with landscaping, 2 feet in height, is proposed to be installed along the perimeter of the site to provide screening. Staff is recommending this berm be increased in height to 2 to 4 feet in height. The building is located 56 feet from the north, 20 feet from the east, 40 feet from the south, and 73.2 feet from the west property line. The lot area for the site is 1.06 acres. The site is visible directly from Highway 5 and has full access from West 79th Street. Staff has been working with the applicant for approximately three months. Discussions have taken place in regard to the Highway 5 overlay district and the image that needs to be projected such as screening of the parking lot and higher quality materials and design for the building. The site plan for the multi-tenant retail building was designed accordingly. It is well designed and staff believes it will enhance the image of Highway 5. They are proposing to utilize rock face block with brick accents along the base of the building and columns and stucco. Decorative clearstory opening adorn the pitched element on all four elevations. Decorative medallions are located on each side of the clearstory. The different materials give the building the desired visual appeal. An attractive feature on this site is the proposed patio area facing Highway 5. Staff believes it will add an inviting and charming characteristic to the Highway. Service doors are proposed for those tenants that would need them along the east elevation of the building. Vehicular parking is proposed along the west portion of the site. This area is in the highway corridor which uses the underlying district for setbacks. The parking as proposed meets the Hwy. 5 zoning district requirement. Screening of the parking and service areas need to be enhanced. The landscaping and grading plans indicate the use of evergreens and two foot high berms to provide the screening. There are certain areas such as the service and parking area, that could use a variety of trees and bushes for additional screening. The proposed two foot berm should be changed into a meandering berm of 2 to 4 feet in height and run along the entire edge of the site to provide screening. One unusual situation associated with this application concerns the hard surface coverage of the site. The current coverage totals 82.5%of the site area. At the southeast corner of the site is a parcel owned by the City with an area of 11,350 square feet. The City purchased it on June 11, 1991, with the intention of leaving it as an open space area. Prior to this date,this parcel was part of the subject site. The applicant approached staff requesting to lease the City property to make up the hard surface coverage difference. The lease will require approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. If approval is granted,the hard surface coverage of the site will amount to 66.1%. The ordinance allows a maximum of 65%hard surface coverage in the Highway Business District. We believe that we will be able to work this detail out with the applicant to meet ordinance requirements. One idea that has been discussed in-house among staff is relocating the patio area onto the HRA property. This arrangement would provide for a more desirable outdoor seating area since it will be setback further from the Highway 5 right-of- Highway 5 Centre May 15, 1996 Page 4 way and allow for additional landscape area. Staff is requesting permission to work out this detail with the applicant if the proposal was acceptable to the HRA. As mentioned earlier,this development falls within the Highway Corridor Overlay and must comply with the district's design standards in addition to the Highway Business District Standards. The purpose of the overlay district is to promote high-quality architectural and site design through improved development standards within the corridor. The design standards should create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment. The plan and design of the proposed development meets the intent of the overlay district with the following features: • The building will be one story and the architectural style is unique to the building but will fit in. The building will provide a variation in style through the use of brick, stucco, glass, and pitched elements. The building is utilizing exterior materials that are durable and of high quality. Samples of the materials as well as a rendering will be available at the meeting. • The site is fairly level. The landscaping plan will provide a variety of plant materials that are massed where possible,particularly along Highway 5. The berms and landscaping materials will be continuous along the perimeter of the site. The plant materials are repetitious in some locations and variable in others. Proposed plant materials are indigenous to Minnesota. A curb is required along the perimeter of the green space area. All planting areas are adequate in size to allow trees to grow. Additional plantings along the south and east portions of the site will be required. • A parking lot light plan is required. The plan should incorporate the light style and height. A detailed sign plan which include lighting method will also be required. Individual channeled letters with the option of back lighting are permitted. • The site plan shows the trash enclosure along the northeast corner of the building. The dumpsters must be completely screened by the enclosure with siding and trim to match the building. Current state statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan,the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: Highway 5 Centre May 15, 1996 Page 5 (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials,textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's Highway 5 corridor design requirements, the comprehensive plan,the zoning ordinance, and the site plan Highway 5 Centre May 15, 1996 Page 6 review requirements. The site design is compatible with the surrounding developments. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the Highway 5 corridor's image. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan, without variances with conditions outlined in the staff report. GRADING & DRAINAGE The existing building on the site has already been demolished. The site drains in a southwesterly direction to an existing drainage swale which conveys water to a culvert underneath Highway 5. The applicant should submit storm sewer calculations to City staff for review and determination of whether or not additional storm sewers are needed within the parking lot. At this point it appears no additional storm sewers will be necessary; however, storm sewer calculations are necessary to confirm that assessment. UTILITIES Municipal utility services are available. Additional requirements may be imposed such as gate valves by the City's Building Department with regards to water service since this site services both the existing motel and proposed development. The utility installation will require permits through the building department. STREETS/PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION The site is proposed to be serviced from two driveway access points off of West 79th Street. The westerly access drive is proposed to be shared with the site to the west(Chanhassen Inn). Staff will require a cross access easement to be recorded against the property. The City's parking ordinance for a 10,000 square foot retail building is at a rate of 1 space per 200 square feet and will result in 50 parking spaces. The applicant is providing 50 spaces. The Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC)requires that handicapped parking spaces be provided at the rate of one handicapped space per every 25 spaces in the lot(s). This calculates out to 2 spaces. The submitted site plan includes three handicapped parking spaces. The Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)has specific requirements for van spaces which currently are not part of the MSBC. These requirements are not enforced by the Inspections Division,but should be incorporated into the site plan. Site approaches are regulated by the MSBC, and are not detailed on the site plan. Curb cuts,width, texture and slope are details that must be included on the site plans. Highway 5 Centre May 15, 1996 Page 7 LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted landscaping plans for the proposed Highway 5 Centre. Landscaping requirements for the site include 1,823 sq. ft. of landscaped area, 7 trees for the parking lot, 10 trees for frontage road requirements, and interior landscaping in the parking lot. The minimum required landscaped area has been provided for within the proposed plans as well as the 10 trees required for street frontage landscaping. However, the applicant has failed to adequately provide for the interior landscaping or trees within the parking lot. Only four trees have been proposed and one more island is needed within the parking area. The applicant will need to meet these requirements or apply for a variance before staff will approve the landscaping plan. In general, trees and other plantings are just above minimum requirements in numbers and area. Since the southern side of the development faces Highway 5, it is in the best interests of the businesses and community to have increased and attractive landscaping fronting the highway. More trees should be added to the southern side, especially if it is intended to be used as a patio area for customers. A separation between people and traffic is necessary if the atmosphere of the outdoor seating area is to be at all inviting. In addition, a bike trail will be approximately 20 feet from the patio and will potentially create additional reasons for increased landscape buffering. Staff proposes that the land adjacent and directly east to the proposed development owned by the city be considered as an alternative location for the proposed patio area. There are a number of reasons why this location would be more suitable. Firstly, the area could be located further away from the highway, over 30 feet, and the bike trail than the proposed location. Secondly, there is more room available for landscaping. Third, directly in front of that area, MnDOT is planting trees and a shrub bed which will provide further screening from the highway in the future. LIGHTING Lighting locations for the parking lot have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than V2 foot candles of light at the property line as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are requested. SIGNAGE The applicant has not submitted a complete signage plan. One ground low profile business sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 8 feet for parcels with a principal structure of less then 50,000 square feet. The sign must maintain a 10 foot setback from the property lines. Highway 5 Centre May 15, 1996 Page 8 One pylon sign is also permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 16 feet for parcels with a principal structure of less then 50,000 square feet. The sign must maintain a 10 foot setback from the property lines. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 13%of the total area of the north or south building wall upon which the signs are mounted. The total area of the signs may not exceed 90 square feet. The total display area along the west elevation may not exceed 7%of the total area of the wall upon which the signs are mounted on. The total area of the signs may not exceed 224 square feet. The applicant is showing signage on three elevations. The ordinance specifically states that wall mounted signage shall be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. In this specific situation,the entryways into these stores will be along the west elevation. Staff is recommending the applicant be permitted to use this elevation, however, signage should be limited to two elevations only. Staff is recommending the following criteria be adopted: 1. All businesses shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of each wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed(24 square feet). 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size,materials, and heights. 6. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. 7. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height. 8. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. 9. One pylon sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 16 feet. Highway 5 Centre May 15, 1996 Page 9 The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop sign must be posted on the driveways at the exit points of the site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. COMPLIANCE TABLE-BH DISTRICT Ordinance Building 1 Building Height 2 stories 1 story Building Setback N-25' E-10' N-56' E-20 S-25' W-10' S-40' W-73.2' Parking stalls 50 stalls 50 stalls Parking Setback N-25' E-0' N-12'* E-90' S-25' W-0' S-20* W-0' Hard surface 70% 58% 69.3% Coverage Lot Area 1 acre 5.43 acres 4.8 acres * The zoning ordinance requires a 25 foot front yard setback for parking areas, and no setback when parking lots are adjacent to one another. Staff is recommending the required setback of 25 feet be maintained. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review#96-4 as shown on the site plan dated April 12, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. 2. Signage criteria: Highway 5 Centre May 15, 1996 Page 10 a. All businesses shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of each wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed(24 square feet). c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. g. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height. h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. i. One pylon sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 16 feet. j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop sign must be posted on each driveway at the exit points of site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. 3. Applicant must provide one landscaped peninsulas in the parking lot. Screening of parking lot and the east elevation must be increased. Screening may include berms, ornamental, and evergreen trees. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 04-1991 (Fire Department Notes to be included on site plans), copy enclosed. Highway 5 Centre May 15, 1996 Page 11 b. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 07-1991 (Pre-Fire plans), copy enclosed. c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29-1992, (Premise Identification), copy enclosed. d. Comply with Inspection Division Installation Policy No. 34-1993, (Water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings), copy enclosed. e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 36-1994, (Combination domestic fire sprinkler supply line),copy enclosed. f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 40-1995, (Fire Sprinkler systems), copy enclosed. g. Install and indicate on plan a post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on the water service line. Location must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 6. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 7. Relocate the two required accessible parking spaces along the center of the building. Relocate the accessible curb cut to one side of the planting area shown on the west side of the building as discussed in the attached Building Official memo. 8. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. 9. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event. Depending on these calculations, additional storm sewers may be warranted. 10. The grading and utility plan shall incorporate erosion control measures throughout the site. 11. Utility installation will require permits through the City's building department. Gate valves will be required on the water line to isolate the motel from the proposed building. 12. Cross-access easements should be required for joint use of the parking lot/drive aisle. 13. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the City HRA approving the lease of the land located east of the subject site. Highway 5 Centre May 15, 1996 Page 12 14. The hard surface coverage of the site may not exceed 65%. 15. The patio area may be moved to the east of the subject property and onto the city property pending approval of the HRA. 16. The parking lot must maintain a 25 foot setback along the north and south." ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map showing property owned by the City. 2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated May 6, 1996. 3. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated April 24, 1996. 4. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated May 7, 1996. 5. Application. 6. Plans dated April 12, 1996. Li CL 14 D i • CI) w • CC 0 i I-- o �I 'ON 'AMH 31V1S o o Z : °' 0 � � 3 .00,ZSoZO N >- -.I �o m o o cc'92 � g d Qn (f) U ' 1- 0 o00. Fi S�•n Z S + z Li a, z , Lu 00 Z w � .„,'k...\),,,,\:, > _ En o X `� 0 pin *° � 0 O~ co ` a - `` �� p VO m J • Z � ° o o • N mc-, O l 4 o °moo l 1291 00, E oS' �o 20 • v. CP S 00°40'00' E °N. .5 18° `� �. N 56.70 $5.36 0 `N w N 'oo N 1 °2�o Q J O y Cd mZ >- J LnOdal- � �` N �% �In 0 •� t �J r\ O `: �1•�LP O :o N � 4\ cL w 0 Pi �� • w c,�� 0 N 1 284 05 O <- `30 �S \Qo; 1 O s,r) rfl ` 01 'fix `f? N 1 • CITY OF a Or: li .,,s TJ s---- iCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II .104 II FROM: Dave Hempel,Assistant City Engineer IVP DATE: May 7, 1996 SUBJ: Review of Site Plan for 501 West 78th Street- Roman Roos Upon review of the plan prepared by RSP dated April 12, 1996, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING The existing building on the site has already been demolished. The site drains in a southwesterly direction to an existing drainage swale which conveys water to a culvert underneath Highway 5. The applicant should submit storm sewer calculations to City staff for review and determination of whether or not additional storm sewers are needed within the parking lot. At this point it appears no additional storm sewers will be necessary; however, storm sewer calculations are necessary to confirm that assessment. UTILITIES Municipal utility services are available. Additional requirements may be imposed such as gate valves by the City's Building Department with regards to water service since this site services both the existing motel and proposed development. The utility installation will require permits through the building department. STREETS Access is via two curb cuts from West 79th Street. The parking lot layout appears acceptable. Cross-access easements for parking is recommended. Sharmin Al-Jaff Site Plan Review for Roman Roos May 7, 1996 Page 2 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event. Depending on these calculations, additional storm sewers may be warranted. 2. The grading and utility plan shall incorporate erosion control measures throughout the site. 3. Utility installation will require permits through the City's building department. Gate valves will be required on the water line to isolate the motel from the proposed building. 4. Cross-access easements should be required for joint use of the parking lot/drive aisle. ktm g:'eng\dave'pckoos.spr CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: RnMAN Rnnc OWNER: MI-KR RAMCF.Y ADDRESS: 1727 Green Crest Drive ADDRESS: 22173 Harsdale Drive Victoria. Minnesota 55386 Farmington Hills. Mich. 4853S TELEPHONE (Day time) 612-829-3848 TELEPHONE: 810-615-0959 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review X Notification Sign 15-0 _ Site Plan Review` X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** 1% 3Jd ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE$ SOD oc- 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 plan 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 NOTE-When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME HIGHWAY 5 CENTRE LOCATION 501 West 79th Street. Chanhassen. Minnesota 55317 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2. ]ick 1. Zam.or Addition— Cga1 to foil w) TOTAL ACREAGE Approx, 47000s_f WETLANDS PRESENT YES x NO PRESENT ZONING Highway RngiOPCS REQUESTED ZONING No Change PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Retail REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION No Change REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Removal of existing building and the construction of a new 10p0 square- fnnt retail renter_ _ This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge The 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 extensions are approved by the applicant �►�,Z ; 1 5c1 C, � � 1 C.� Signature of Applicant Date ' Signature of Fee Owner / Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address, .9 64 > - t+s,�f 'EM IM© Ilm■ M �►� �1 ., ., . a Mn wry c �� ■i • @ a .ii .o a :. 5ii "% = O��1111111 11111 1111111 ::: NOTICE OF PUBLIC �� ,, �► . ■� HEARING Coulter D 11111"11 , i ` ,� :111 ::: " — PLANNING 11111.1611111 COMMISSION 9��:.t:. £. K:: .:,��.' i:��.,. _::a�.t:.�,.R . >v�,: :..- MEETING � 111 ' Wednesday, MAY 15, 1996 ut,sc at 7:00 p.m. �l City Hall Council Chambers '? -.��- C 690 Coulter Drive �� • State Hw 5 111019.„ ,1 ��■ Project: Site Plan Review ��,� �,,�� ''ie • &an ofis1P4#1: Developer: Roman Roos/Mike Ramsey L �' ^' '`, ''If ► Q • Location: 501 West 79th Street ��i�� : •4 on; Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant, Roman Roos/Mike Ramsey, is requesting site plan review of a 10,000 square foot retail facility on 1.06 acres of property zoned BH, Highway Business District and located at 501 West 79th Street,Hiway 5 Centre. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting,the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments:If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 2, 1996. Chanhassen Inn Amoco American Oil Co. 531 West 79th Street Property Tax Dept. Waterfront Associates Chanhassen, MN 55317 200 E. Randolph Dr. MC 2408 440 Union Place Chicago, IL 60601-7125 Excelsior, MN 55331 Ralph Molnau& Ronald Dubbe B. C. Burdick Holiday Station Stores 356 31/4 Street West 684 Excelsior Blvd. 4567 80th Street West Waconia, MN 55387 Excelsior, MN 55331 Bloomington, MN 55437 Brown's Standard Michael Sorenson Dr. Stephen Benson 7900 Great Plains Blvd. 7905 Great Plains Blvd. 500 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen Vet Clinic Chanhassen Kitchen& Bath Cheers Wine & Spirits 440 West 79th Street 530 West 79th Street 530 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Big A Auto Parts Mr.John Przymus Safari Tanning Hut New Revolutions 404 West 79th Street 530 West 79th Street 406 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 f CITY 4 F ,.,,, CHANHASSEN ._ ,k,, , .. . . 0, _ , ..... , , „.. . 7 ` ., , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff,Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman,Building Official ., DATE: May 6, 1996 - SUBJECT: 96-4 SPR(Hiway 5 Centre,Roman Roos/Mike Ramsey) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, APR 12 1996, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis: Accessible parking spaces must be located on the shortest possible accessible route to the building. In this case,the two required accessible spaces should be located in the center of the parking lot with the accessible curb cut on either side of the planting area at the center of the building. An eight foot wide van accessible aisle is required. I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. Recommendation: 1. Relocate two required accessible parking spaces to the center of the building to the center of the building. Relocate the accessible curb cut to one side of the planting area shown on the west side of the building. g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\hiwy5ctr ,. CITY OF It :_, I . , _ , ClIANBASSEN •, ,,,,,., _ .... 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: April 24, 1996 RE: Request for site plan review of a 10,000 sq. ft. retail facility on 1.06 acres on property zoned BH, highway business district and located at 501 West 78th Street, Hwy 5 Centre, Roman Roos/Mike Ramsey. Planning Case: 96-4, Site Plan Review I reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance policy requirements. The site plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 04-1991 (Fire Department Notes to be included on site plans),copy enclosed. 2. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 07-1991 (Pre-Fire plans), copy enclosed. 3. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29-1992, (Premise Identification), copy enclosed. 4. Comply with Inspection Division Installation Policy No. 34-1993, (Water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings), copy enclosed. 5. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 36-1994, (Combination domestic fire sprinkler supply line),copy enclosed. 6. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 40-1995, (Fire Sprinkler systems), copy enclosed. Install and indicate on plan a post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on the water service line. Location must be approved by the Fire Marshal. g:/safety/mI/96-4 CITY OF \, , CHANHASSE N' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �r. (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS 1. Fire Marshal must witness the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per NFPA 13-8-2.1. 2. A final inspection by the Fire Marshal before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3. Fire Department access roads shall be provided on site during all phases of construction. The construction of these temporary roads will conform with the Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for temporary access roads at construction sites. Details are available. 4. Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided and in operating condition during all phases of construction. 5. The use of liauefied petroleum as shall be in conformance with NFPA Standard 58 and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A list of these requirements is available. (See policy #33-1993) 6. All fire detection and fire suppression systems shall be monitored by an approved UL central station with a UL 71 Certificate issued on these systems before final occupancy is issued. 7. An 11" x 14" As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The As Built shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal. (See policy #07-1991). 8. An approved lock box shall be provided on the building for fire department use. The lock box should be located by the Fire Department connection or as located by the Fire Marshal. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: 12/23/94 Page 1 of 2 9. High-piled combustible storage shall comply with the requirements of Article #81 of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. High-piled combustible storage is combustible materials on closely packed piles more than 15' in height or combustible materials on pallets or in racks more than 12' in height. For certain special-hazard commodities such as rubber tires, plastics, some flammable liquids, idle pallets, etc. the critical pile height may be as low as 6 feet. 10. Fire lane signage shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal. (See policy #06-1991). 11. Smoke detectors installed in lieu of 1 hour rated corridors under UBC section 3305G, Exception#5 shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Depalunent requirements for installation and system type. (See policy #05-1991). 12. Maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line policy must be followed. (See policy #36-1994). Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention c. Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22/91 c !' �-- Revised: 12/23/94 Approved - Public Safety Director Page 2 of 2 . CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REGARDING PRE-PLAN Prior to issuing the C .O. , a pre-plan, site plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval . The following items shall be shown on the plan. 1) Size 11 " x 17" (maximum) 2) Building footprint and building dimensions 3) Fire lanes and width of fire lanes 4) Water mains and their sizes, indicate looped or dead end 5) Fire hydrant locations 6) P.I .V. - Fire Department connection 7) Gas meter (shut-off) , NSP (shut off) 8) Lock box location 9) Fire walls, if applicable 10) Roof vents, if applicable 11) Interior walls 12) Exterior doors 13) Location of fire alarm panel 14) Sprinkler riser location 15) Exterior L.P. storage, if applicable 16) Haz . Mat . storage, if applicable 17) Underground storage tanks locations, if applicable 18) Type of construction walls/roof 19) Standpipes PLEASE NOTE: Plans with topographical information, contour lines, easement lines, property lines, setbacks, right-of-way lines, headings, and other related lines or markings, are not acceptable, and will be rejected. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #07-1991 Date: 01/16/91 ✓/1 Revised: 02/18/94 Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 9. All systems must be designed to NFPA-13, 1991 edition and Chapter 6 Standards. All attic systems are to be spaced at a maximum 130 square foot coverage. 3/4" plastic piping will j be allowed at any time in attic space. 10. All equipment installed in a fire protection system shall be UL listed or factory mutual approved for fire protection service. 11. Fire protection systems that are hydraulically calculated shall have a 5 psi safety factor at maximum system flow. 12. Acceptable water supplies for fire sprinkler systems are listed in NFPA-13, 1991 ed., Chapter 7. Swimming pools and ponds are not acceptable primary water supplies. 13. Pressure and gravity tanks shall be sized per the requirements contained in NFPA-13 and 22. Duration of the water supply shall match the hazard classification of the occupancy. 14. Include spec sheets for fire sprinkler heads - dry pipe/pre-action valving. 15. The definition of inspection is contained in MN Rule 7512.0100 Subpart 10, and states that inspection means: 1. Conducting a final acceptance test. 2. Trip test of dry pipe, deluge or preaction valves. 3. A test that an authority having jurisdiction requires to be conducted under the supervision of a contractor. Only licensed fire protection contractors are permitted to conduct these tests. 4. All other inspections including the inspectors test, main drain and other valves are permitted under MN Rule 7512.0400 Subpart-2G, as maintenance activities and do not require a license as a fire protection contractor. 16. Per Section 904.3.2. and the 1994 Uniform Building Code, an approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupants shall be provided in the interior of the building in a normally occupied location. (Location must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal). Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Policy #40-1995 Date: 01/12/95 Revised: 04/26/95 Approved-Public Safety Director Page: 2 of 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS 1. Permits are required for all sprinkler work. 2. A minimum of four sets of plans are required. Send, or drop off plans and specifications and calculations to: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 3. Yard post indicators are required and must have tamper protection. 4. All control values must be provided with tamper protection. 5. All systems tests must be witnessed by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Appointments can be made by calling the Fire Marshal at 937-1900, ext. 132, between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Please try to arrange tests at least 24 hours in advance. All revisions of 25 heads or more will require a test. 6. Main drains & inspector test connections must be piped to the outside atmosphere. 7. Water may be introduced into sprinkler piping from the City main until the Fire Marshal witnesses a flush test per NFPA 13-8-2.1. 8. The City of Chanhassen has adopted Appendix E (see 1305.6905 appendix chapter 38 of the MBC). Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Policy #40-1995 Date: 01/12/95 Revised: 04/26/95 Page 1 of 2 i CITY QF opoii, CHANHASSEN , / 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROTECTIVE INSPECTION DIVISION POLICY MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIZE OF DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE ON A COMBINATION DOMESTIC/FIRE SPRINKLER SUPPLY LINE 1. Domestic water line shall not be greater than 1/4 pipe size of the combination service water supply line. 2. 1 1/2" domestic off 6" line 3. 2" domestic off 8" line 4. 2 1/2 domestic off 10" line Option 1: Domestic sizes may be increased if it can be calculated hydraulically that the demand by all domestic fixtures will not drop the fire sprinkler water below its minimum gallonage required. Option 2: Combination domestic and five line service shall have an electric solenoid valve installed on the domestic side of the service. This valve shall be normally powered open and close on loss of electric power or signal from the system water flow indicator. Must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Mechanical Inspector. Chanhassen Fire Department Water Line Sizing • Policy #36-1994 Date: 06/10/94 -- r�e96' Revised: Approved - P lic Safety Director Page 1 of 1 4) Water main flushing shall be witnessed by the utility superintendent. a) Watermain flushing may be scheduled by contacting the utility superintendent at 474-2086. A 48 hour notice is required. b) The utility superintendent shall obtain a water sample for a bacteria test after the main flush and deliver to a testing company. The contractor shall be responsible for testing costs. Allow two weeks for testing results to be returned to the City. c) Upon receiving approval of the water sample test, the utility superintendent shall submit a copy to each plumbing inspector and turn water on to the tested and approved sections of the piping. 5) An additional supervised flush and flow test will be required and witnessed by the Fire Marshal for services supplying fire suppression systems. The flush and flow test shall be performed in accordance with 1991 edition of NFPA 13, Sec. 8- 2.1. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal at 937-1900, ext. 132. 6) Watermain installations shall comply with: a) Minnesota Plumbing Code, Chapter 4715 b) Chanhassen Engineering Department, Watermain Specifications c) National Fire Protection Association, Chapter 24 7) Only authorized city employees are permitted to operate city water control valves. For water turn on or off contact the utility superintendent by phone 474-2086. A 24 hour notice is required. Inspections Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993 Date: 04/15/93 Revised: 04/17/96 Approved - Public Safety Director Page 2 of CITY 4F CBANI1ASSEN 0 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION POLICY FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1) The Inspections Division shall be responsible for issuance of permits. No permit shall be issued until approval of plans have been obtained from the following: a) Engineering Department b) Fire Marshal c) Minnesota Department of Health d) Plumbing Inspector 2) Plumbing inspectors will do all installation inspections and witness the hydrostatic and conductivity tests. Inspection and Test Requirements a) All pipe shall be inspected before being covered. Phone 937-1900. ext. 31. to schedule inspections. A 24 hour notice is required. b) Conductivity test is required. The pipe shall be subjected to a minimum 350 amp test for a period of not less than 5 minutes. c) Hydrostatic test required. All pipe shall be subjected to a hydrostatic pressure of 150 psi for 2 hours. Allowable pressure drop shall not exceed 1 PSL d) Pipe shall not be run under buildings - NFPA 248-3.1. 3) Upon approval of the hydro test. the plumbing inspector shall submit a copy of the inspection report to the utility superintendent. The inspection report shall note whether the system is ready for main flush and drawing of water sample for the bug test. Inspections Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993 Date: 04/15/93 Revised: 4/17/96 Page 1 of 2 . ._:_,A,. .. ._,-„., CITY OF , ,___,. -,...• ki ClIANEASSEN '.--S;7frilk:,. -,. ,.;J - .vx-, -,:- ----, .....,-•• .. etp 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -ry .- (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 41. CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal . Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. Other Requirements - General 1, Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background. 2. Numbers shall not be In script 3. If a structure Is not visible from the street,additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement#3 must still be met 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary. Residential Requirements(2 or less dwetilnq unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1!4". 2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Commercial Re+rptreenerrts 1. Minimum height shall be 12". 2. Strip Malls a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6". b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. - Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 Ai- Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Safity Director Page 1 of 1 t a• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF _.1 " "q„, f2,41 CHANEAssrx 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. Other Requirements-General 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background. 2. Numbers shall not be in script 3. If a structure Is not visible from the sliest,additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement #3 must still be met 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary. Residential Requirements(2 or less dwelling unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4", 2. Building permits will not be flnaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department. Commercial Requirements 1. Minimum height shall be 12 2 Strip Malls a. Mufti tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6". b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 - -- Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 till, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER tt CI TY QF tiy 690 COULTER DRIVE •(612)P.O.937-1900 BOX 14•7 •FAX CHA(612)NHASSEN937-5739, MINNESOTA 55317 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: April 26, 1996 RE: Request for preliminary plat of Lot 1, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor into two single family lots on zoned property RSF, and located at 8591 Tigua Circle, Rice Lake Manor Estates, Harry McGee. Planning Case: 96-8 SUB and 96-1 WAP I reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with Chanhassen Fire plans or changes are submitted the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policy No. 29-1992 Premise Identification (copy enclosed). g:/safety/ml/96-8-1 - Ir1LLIAM R. ' N GELHARDT ASS O C TES E C. CONSUL T L G ENGINEERS 1,,Je,1.- I *Wetland Services* eic AILr��- Date: 0y4 PField tSiteigator(s): State: Ain, County: Art' Appict Site: Plant Community Name K:_ ?�pp[icandOwncr: << �e Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes No LA;I i4‘,/ ConSt/uef7'eh C�k j (e�laaacion if no) Y A. �� ,2 fUrla� Sofa Has vczetation,soils, and/or hydroloey been sisrificantly disturbed? Yes _ ° (explanation if no) VEGETATION Scientific Name Indicator Status Stratum Dominant Plant Sot les - c w • t Ate. :_... � bac i..) SLS r /n ! -..../ ru c l./ -t/' Q 0 P-;.ac of dominant ave=es that arc OBL.FAC W, and/or FAC: l()Q Is the hvdroohytic veetadon criterion met' Yes )( No • Rationale: - SOILS Series: �� Subgroup: Is the soil on the hydric soils list'? Yes X No Undetermined Is the soil ar'.istosoi? Yes No Fustic cpipedon present? Yes No Is the soil mottled? Yes No Gieyed? Yes No • -Matrix Color_ - .- - - j:iottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil c te.:•n met? Yes X No / Zo �r / Rationale: • / % G u AV... ri.0HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface Mundated? Yes No Z Surface water depth n /4 G,s Is the soil saturated? Yes No . Depth to free stand ig water h soil observation hole: List other field evidence of surface Mundation or soil sanration Is the wetland hydroiogy criterion met? Yes No ,. �! `, it"-,le-' /,, Rationale: — - ._ •,�•/ ..f. -- •6o-ov• a,z i1 dkygf2.an JURISDICTIONAL.DE'IER:'YfNATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes 2c No Racionaie for jurisdictional decision: _ A7/-e,-- - - - 1107 Haze:tme Boulevard, Suite 480 Chaska,M. 55318 (612) 43-8838 WILLIAM R. NGELHARDT ASSOC'r ".TS INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS UP *Weiland Services* • Field Investigator(s): g•wi` Q�b�6 � Date: Project Site: 1 . ( L�cA- State: /11n County Applicant/Owner: Plant Community Name 4: LPY Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes No '� tiff.!illy Cora-rue 111 askJ (explanation if no) Has +. Has vegetation.soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No X r S °` ' �,�Stl fur/4 (exvlanatioa if no) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Scientific Name Indicator Status Stratum _ — C7-. v c{:{'1+o r'q 4 a Percent of dominant species that are OBL,FACW,and/or FAC: Is the hydrophytic vegetation citerion met? ....les No Rationale: n /y , c I'S f/r SOILS Series: /\ r Subgroup: Is the soil on.the hydric soils list? Yes )< No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil mottled?_ Yes No Gleyed? Yes No :Matrix Color: - bs. ottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No )� � Rationale: n. rS' c C TKO/pcd /Tlf,7,sr, 9721 r'"' HYDROLOGY • Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth: Is the soul saturated? Yes No • Death to free standing water in soil observation hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: • Is the wetland hydrology crice met? Yes No Rationale: (ro un, JTTRISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: 0 oq e 4/4611., hC /0/6 sd 01t- 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard,Suite 480 - Chaska, '. 55318 (612)448-8838 WILLIAM R. GELH ARDT ASS O C7 L S LNC. 7;-. CONSUL-1-LNG ENGLNEERS u *Wetland Services* Field Investigator(s): ,.. 6v` 41(6 k- Date: / i State: ten. County: Oji" AppU t Site: I;l . l L� Plant Community Name T: L,f'/ plicant/OWncr: corse Do normal environmental c onaitions exist at the plant community? Yep No IA.;!illy CoAOYucIll o ti C�'6) (explanation if no) V Noh. %/a �,?fvr( Si h. Has vegetation,soils, and/or hydrology be sivrificantly disturbed. Yes (explanation if no) VEGETATION l Scientific Name Indicator Status Stir= Domiraq[Plant:ant Sp�:� t V- /r L6 r,iIl CA r t. t•. i Ar- z r� Fo�c _CI,r- 4 u �TY`JJ o f� cc; LA-) s 6 q ''F��44 ill Li r' o r(Th../09 "Po L,lnn� t-•G,J if\ r Percent of dominant species that are OL.F?.CW, and/or FAC: l'o pl6 h1-S Is the hydroohytic vegetation c:terion met? xes No Rationale: GA-/7-t2 Ll r/-;p,6 SOI FT/1 S f J / Subiroup: Sores: � + r-� Is the soil on the nyaric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosoi? Yes No 'vatic eoipedon present? Yes No Is the soil mottled? Yes No Gieyed? Yes No :Matrix Color. _ -._ - t::ottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No • Rationale: HYDROLOGY Is the gotmd surface gundated? Yes No Suaace water depth: . Is the soil saturated? Yes • No Depth to free standing water M.soil observation hole: List other field evidence of surface Mundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes NoC.,----CS�Jwts no /!� �/ Radonale: - `• r" JURISDICI•IONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant cosmtmity a wetland? Yes ANo_. Rationale for jursdicdonal decision: /�'t‘ClJ/in6 r/ Giro ✓e, �` Hc1 1107 Hazeltine Bonlevaro., Suite 480 Chaska,MN. 55313 (612)443-8838 WILLIAM R. fl GELH AR.DT ASS O CT-\'11.:S INC. 772: CONSULT tNG ENGLNEERS *Wetland Services* • to s : �+��c 41/2/'6 f- Date: FieldInvestigator(s): ea r( ) State: Ain, County: aoirtr Project Site: �i ... I ...� �r CtY. f� Plant Community Name#: Applicant/Owner: L..�.sss / Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant co¢tmuairy? Yes. No Lif;14y ConStrue41e•, (A (explanation if no) �,(,�/,,, Sr l+• Has vegetatioa,soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes� No h. (exvlaaatioa if no) VEGETATION Dominant PI t Species Scientific Name Indicator Stalus Stratum dommili '../-46.u rim/!o 0 in Percent of dominant species that arc OBL.FACW,and/or FAC: lQ:)'/o Is the hydroohytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No Rationale: /Qt/ 4'Y dr,4S'7C SOILS Series: CX-/Y 'v``' subgroup: Is the sod on.the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Hiistosol? Yes No Histic cpipedon present? Yes No • Is the soil mottled? Yes No Gl ed? Yes No :Matrix Color. _ t,idaleColors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met1?1 Yes ) No o v �� / Rationale: &O V P-A Pfn 7 m r� 'CO <� G~5 A ,90sd HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated. Yes No Sulfate water depthe 1'ts Is the soli saturated? Yes No Depth to free standing water is soil observation hole: . List other field evidence of surface inundation or saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion.met? Yes No ro Rationale: fie,, amu✓-Cud-s JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: ce// lam, na 14-16 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard,Suite 480 - Chaska,.NLN. 55318 (612)443-8838 R. vGELHARDT ASSOC '.11ES LNC. �u WILLIAM R CONSULTING ENGINEERS *Wetland Services* Investigator(s):I.?. gsvc All2r6c1-1F Date: Fieldr /� County: oar Project Site: , L Lar c . State: h Applicant/Owner: Plant Community Name#: 1,/ Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? YesNo , i •I. t!onStrue.41e•1 ak.) (explanation if no) h. of',�furlx�Srl+. Has vegetation.soils,and/or hydrology been sicantly disturbed? Yes x No (explanation if no) VEGETATION Scientific Name Indicator Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species . r a Percent of dominant species that are OBL,FACW,md/or FAC: Is the hvdroanytic vegetation c iterion met? Yes Rationale: � / /� SOILS Sties: G L (/a r nv 'f 1/4lJ' Subgroup: Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Idistosol? Yes No artistic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soilmoaled? Yes No Gieyed? Yes No Matrix Color. - t iottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: ':Max the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No Q/o U��/ o Rationale: ✓ J f�' 7-6 HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth: • Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free standing water in soil observation hole: . List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No ero r a v' / Rationale: ��G UG-Ftc��-+ �V J1'n A- °Ssv+�s JURISDICTIONAL DETERMT`IATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Mohd 1107 Hazeltine Bonlevard,Suite 480 Chaska,MN. 55318 (6 12)448-8838 WILLIAM R. j GELHARDT ASSOCLr."1'ES INC. w4+- CONSULTU IG ENGINEERS *Wetland Services* Field Investigator(s): g61` Ail9r6 k- Date: l �/ Project Site: 1,`1... ( Lr<�e State: Aiti, County: C, Applicant/Ownerwr- �,o.rers., Plant Community Name /JO/ Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes. No K. Ce.strvtfie., CIkj (explanation if no) �,k/vr(�sv Sito Has vegetation,soils,and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes X No h. (explanation if no) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Scientific Name Indicator Status Stratum 0 �n Percent of dominant species that are OBL,FACW,and/or FAC: /OOZ Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? /Yes A-. No Rationale: /00„f..1" a/2Ay i4 t SOILS Series: exSubgroup: Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined • Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No 7C--- Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No i 1 rO Z6 ra :Matrix Color: - _ _T i:iottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes 7 No aS p fiG c.A Rationale: So i I Rro T a r1 HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth: i"f,zen SU/ GS L 0I C Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free standing water in soil observation hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: cor'taL6 t,.4 f-e.r' JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X. No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: 1.4.16 f .poi/aSSd•.y, 94;, i•-r 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard,Suite 430 Chaska,.MN. 55318 (612)448-8838 Hydrology: �y- Water Source: 4.4, feMcst-4- Outflow : /Q k6 Artificially Drained: Artificially Created or Altered: 1i*a ��/J, (explain) Land Use Influences: 1 Surrounding Land Use(%),%ni c,�/ ��Q^� a �6� xr.S't)'ry W fl•` Previous Land Use(%): Sketch/Pictures: WILLIAIM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS *Wetland Services* Wetland Observation Record Offsite Information Wetland#: ! F'eld Review: Location: T; R; Section USGS NWI: Yes /\ No Type(Cowardin): f gty.1 ,„ all A yp6 c V-Vp6 i i P/ 3 tt•y cSAO/a/1 ' Type(Circ.39): DNR Protected Waters: Yes No Site Soils: County SurveyReport: Carr"s r year: Soil Hydric List Inclusions/Whole unit film Y& 5 610 G L yss C-x V6S rIP y6s V Location: a long Lk. 5.r. //'-,6 Watershed Characteristics: a.,/y Si-.470/1-/o r. ,n/,"o/ /1-" Wetland size: ,'Z acres #wetlands in basin: Total drainage area: acres Direct drainage area: acres Open water area: acres nn Onsite Information Field Observer: Date Visited:i/P11/9S Vegetation Plant S•ecies Status Plant Species Status Plant Species Status fArd "sr. r or' �araen Is Plant Diversity: hi-) % Open Water: % 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard, Suite 480 Chaska, MN. 55318 (612) 448-8838 WILLIAIM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS *Wetland Services* Field Conditions Record ll Date: /gI/ 6:41"--Field Investigator. 9S Location: /� ...Project/Site h e State: /14/ County: <c,✓ ' ' Project Name: L,coss J Applicant/Owner: Stidtry Time: WW; O Ar/Temp:OTemp: 30° Conditions: 6# Precipitation(recent): /ben A Soil Conditions: Pro Zb r� Comments: /2c c ®ihal'r5S 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard, Suite 480 Chaska, MN. 55318 Appendix A 0-1CITY Q F PC DATE: May 15, 1996 \� 1 • CUAHACE N CC DATE: June 10, 1996 �� . CASE #: 96-8 SUB itimmmosimmismstramili STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Metes and Bounds approval to subdivide a 7.05 acre parcel into two single family lots of 2.87 acres,and 4.18 acres, Rice Lake Manor Estates I- Z LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor. East of Tigua Lane and southwest of Rice Q Marsh Lake V a_ APPLICANT: Barry McKee Brenda Schaeffer Q_ 324 South Main Street 27306 County Road A Q Suite 260 Spooner, WI 54801 Stillwater, MN 55082 (612)430-1717 (612(635-9545 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 7.05 acres DENSITY: 0.28 Units per Acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF;and Rice Marsh Lake S - RSF;and R-4, Vacant Land E- RSF;City owned Open Space QW- RSF; Residential Single Family Q ' WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water are available to the site. lij PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains a single family residence and a shed. It is F._ heavily wooded and contains wetlands. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density \,...._._,...,-.- JJ s Chanhass a = dij : OA N*5tem - - 1 • w � r. .-t�j i." - Mini Park t1Q5 a. r'a Lao -,` rs �4„ wi. nII' e ----- \Age State H 5 ` e- mop_ ) _. o� 'a/ ' 1 �` 53. -411► cUiVoltL e k ,, ALU.,,;,��y� . _ ‘ WA All:.70 , - , : ►�, ,; Rice Mar h .to or41 4 Lake P k LakMOM MN e Susan•1111 al y Rice "�Wig ON � , arsh Lake , l!OP+J 4. . .,4. iiiI4z I 'cru eit 1 111Y,' i f:, .0 1 tt.i. ;' !". %.4;t:i5;$.4i),Vzs:11 Eilliiii . ..**4 / 4 _*� r0111111/ 11 - 'k'ifsMandTiail�� -�� 46" 3 Y.. lia10 • it 047":411 � *Ir w� • _ p H.►12 - U � '��,�I>• P. r pRppp •E -- - OA 4Vamino I •.. —ler / �� _„1ii 1 Doti ; aft iii -�� eRile Oat%� i BM �0Ch . soon , f II Ii t' 111 —_-J ' 1 I Park -= \.. i _I d I 6�z 9 hfi 1r • e: Bandl ere �` 1 / t. Heigh s 7 j 1 1 Parkta i Bandimere , Ir 1� � i 1I+� , r►� � 1 �� ''' 1\�� Lake Community �� C I k{ • MN omiliA.M Riley - Park UI , *0 e.. i Rice Lake Manor Estates May 15, 1996 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval for a metes and bounds subdivision to subdivide a 7.05 acre site into 2 single family parcels. Parcel A will be available for future construction. Parcel B contains a single family home. The site is located southwest of Rice Marsh Lake and west of Tigua Lane. The site will be accessed via Tigua Lane off of a private driveway which will be shared by three homes. The proposed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The site generally slopes to the northeast. The natural drainage of the site will be maintained with this subdivision. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that park and trail fees be paid in lieu of park land. Staff believes that this plat request is a reasonable one and consistent with guidelines established by the city Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. We find it to be well designed. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions as outlined in the report. BACKGROUND On June 26, 1980, the City Council approved a subdivision of 39.8 acres into 8 single family lots, Rice Lake Manor. With this proposal, the applicant is proposing to subdivide Lot 1, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor, into two lots. SUBDIVISION The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 7.05 acre site into 2 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 0.28 units per acre. Both lots far exceed the minimum 15,000 square foot of area. Parcel A is proposed to have and area of 2.87 acres, and Parcel B, 4.18 acres. Parcel A will be reserved for future development. A shed is located on proposed Parcel A and needs to be removed prior to recording of the final plat. A section of the existing home which is located on proposed Parcel B, straddles the property line and encroaches onto the parcel to the east(City owned land- Open Space). This section was added on sometime after the building permit was issued for the main structure. Staff does not have a record of this addition (a lean-to and a kennel) but we recommend that the applicant remedy the situation by removing these structures. Rice Lake Manor Estates May 15, 1996 Page 3 A fence which appears to belong to a neighbor is shown on the north property line. There is no record of a permit for this fence. Permits are required for fences (CCC 20-1017), and a fence may not be built on adjoining property(CCC 20-1019). Staff has no way of determining when the fence was built or if the applicant was aware of the encroachment. The property to be split must meet code requirements, necessitating, at a minimum,removal of the section of fence violating the code. The applicant may wish to work with the neighbor in the removal of the noncomplying portion of the fence. What appears to be a deck is shown on the northwest corner of the house. Although the original permit appears to include a deck, it was not shown in its current location. It may have been built differently at the time of original construction or added later. A deck added later would have required a building permit. The applicant should determine when the deck was built and obtain an after the fact permit if a permit would have been required at the time of its construction. A structure is shown extending over the east property line. No structure regulated by the building code may cross a property line. This structure was not shown on the original survey, nor is there a record of a building permit for its construction. Any structure regulated by the code will require a permit and must be altered to comply with the building code and city code. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS According to the wetland delineation performed by William Engelhardt and Associates, three wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows: North Basin is part of the Rice Marsh Lake wetland basin and is Type 1, 2, 3 at different points along the shoreline. This wetland is on the Chanhassen Wetland Classification Map,the NWI Map, and the DNR Protected Waters Map. West Basin is an ag/urban wetland located along the western boundary of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the southwest;approximately 3/4 acres of wetland is on site. This wetland is part of City Wetland A24-3(1)and is mapped as PEMCd. This wetland has been delineated as Type 1/2 and drains to a ditch wetland that eventually drains into Rice Marsh Lake. Southeast Basin is also an ag/urban wetland part of the drainage system that connects the West Basin to Rice Marsh Lake. It has also been identified as Type 1/2. Rice Lake Manor Estates May 15, 1996 Page 4 Regulations The City administers the 1991 version of the Wetland Conservation Act(WCA). It does not appear that a wetland replacement plan will be necessary for this project; however, improvements or changes to the existing drainage ditch will require mitigation and permits. In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. GRADING AND DRAINAGE Only minor grading is anticipated for utility installation and driveway construction for the new home site. This work will most likely occur when a building permit is issued for the new lot. Staff recommends that a detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan be submitted for review and approval by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The site contains wetlands and drainage swales which conveys runoff from the surrounding parcels through this site. A drainage easement should be dedicated over the wetlands and drainage ditches on both parcels to preserve the neighborhood drainage pattern. The drainage easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)proposes a trunk storm sewer system in the future(24-inch RCP)to replace portions of the drainage ditch. There are currently some existing storm sewers/culverts, as well as a small sediment basin, in place. According to records, this system was constructed in the early 1980s in an attempt to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into Rice Marsh Lake. In conjunction with the Mission Hills development directly east of the site, a series of storm water ponds were constructed to pretreat some of the runoff prior to discharging into the site. Staff is not recommending at this time that any new improvements be constructed with this subdivision proposal. Therefore, the applicant shall be responsible for SWMP fees pursuant to City ordinance. Currently,the SWMP fees for water quality and quantity are $800 and$1,980 per acre, respectively. Wetlands are subtracted out from the gross acreage. These fees are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. The water service is located in the east boulevard of Tigua Lane. The water service will have to be extended from the main line to the home by the applicant or future property owner. Sanitary sewer will have to be extended up from the existing main adjacent to Rice Marsh Lake to service the home. This will also be Rice Lake Manor Estates May 15, 1996 Page 5 required in conjunction with the building on the new lot. A permit will be required for the extension of sewer and water service to the house through the City's Building Department. The new lot will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges in accordance to City ordinances. Currently, these hookup fees are $1,115 for sewer and $1,460 for water(per unit). These fees are payable to the City at time of building permit issuance. STREETS Staff has been working with the applicant to look at future development potential of this site. Given the sensitive nature of the site, i.e. trees, wetlands, drainage ditches, future development may be limited to a private driveway until such time as the parcel to the south develops. At that time the easterly portion of the site may have the potential to access a public street. During the interim, a private driveway is proposed to be shared with Lot 2, Block 1 and the existing resident on Lot 1, Block 1 in addition to the new proposed lot. The existing driveway is proposed to be upgraded to meet the City's private driveway ordinance. Cross-access easements should be prepared and recorded. PARK AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission recommended the City Council require full park and trail fees be paid as a condition of approval. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE-RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Home Home Wetland Area Width Depth Setback Setback +Buffer Ordinance 15,000 sq. ft. 90' 125' 30' front/rear 40' +(0-20) 10' sides Parcel A 125,262.84 sq. ft. 186.95' 1007.93' 30' front/rear 40' +(0-20) 10' sides Parcel B 182,169.97 sq. ft. 137' 1099.67' 30' front/rear 40' +(0-20) 10' sides Rice Lake Manor Estates May 15, 1996 Page 6 LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has submitted a tree inventory for the Rice Lake Manor development and according to plans tree removal for the proposed building pad and utilities will be within maximum removal allowed for a large lot residential site. The development has about an 85% existing canopy coverage and approximate removal for the development is 7,100 sq. ft., or including building site and sewer installation. PRIVATE STREETS - FINDINGS The applicant is proposing the use of an existing private street to provide access to the new parcel in this development. City Code, Section 18-57 (o)permits up to four(4) lots to be served by a private street if the city finds the following to exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination,the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions, and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees. FINDING: The prevailing development makes it infeasible for the construction of a public street. It is heavily wooded and contains wetlands. There is an existing private street that does not meet ordinance requirements. The shared portion of that driveway must be built up to a 7 ton design and meet all requirements of the private street ordinance. Staff is recommending that the private streets as proposed by the applicant be approved for reasons outlined above. Rice Lake Manor Estates May 15, 1996 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Metes and Bounds Subdivision #96-8, Rice Lake Manor Estates, as shown on the plans dated received April 12, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. Tree Preservation fencing must be installed around the perimeter of the building site, 20 feet from the proposed pad, before grading or excavation begins. No trees will be permitted to be removed except those within the building pad and 20 feet from the pad. Also one tree will be required in the front yard setback area. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Tract A, a detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 3. The applicant shall dedicate to the City drainage easements over all wetlands and drainage ditches. The drainage easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management fees pursuant to City ordinance. 5. Extension of sewer and water service to the new lot will require a permit from the City's building department. 6. The new lot will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges pursuant to City ordinance. 7. The private driveway should be upgraded to meet City ordinance. Cross-access easements shall be conveyed to benefiting properties. 8. Full park and trail fees be paid in accordance with City ordinance. 9. The applicant shall remove all structures that encroach onto the city property located east of the subject site. 10. The neighbor's fence located north of the subject property which encroaches onto Parcel A must be removed. Rice Lake Manor Estates May 15, 1996 Page 8 11. Building Official's conditions: a. Remove fence or portion of fence which is noncomplying with city code. b. Determine construction period for structure at the northwest corner of the property and work with Inspections Division staff to obtained permits and inspections, if any are required. c. Remove the structure on the east side of the dwelling, or obtain a permit to alter the structure to meet building and zoning code requirements." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application 2. Public hearing and property owners list. 3. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer and Phillip Elkin, Water Resources Coordinator,dated May 8, 1996. 4. Memo from Mark Littfm,Fire Marshal,dated April 26, 1996. 5. Wetland report prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates Inc. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated May 6, 1996. 7. Preliminary plat dated received April 12, 1996. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Barry McKee OWNER: Brenda Schaeffer 324 S. Main St. , Suite 260 27306 County Road A ADDRESS: ADDRESS: Stillwater, MN 55082 Spooner, WI 54801 (612) 430-1717 (715) 635-9545 TELEPHONE (Day time) TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review 1,--Notification Signs 2t 150 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** UP/SP RNACNAR/WAP/M etes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision $ ( 50 TOTAL FEE $ 350.00 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8'/z" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. • Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract . PROJECT NAME Rice Lake Manor Estates LOCATION 8591 Tigua Circle, Chanhassen LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor PRESENT ZONING Residential REQUESTED ZONING Same PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Low density residential REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Low density residential REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To allow this lot split so that this acreage may be split into two lots (versus just the existing one) . This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization t3 proceedyrith the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. "/. //? Signa4u e( p#: licant - Date ' 727_A;56 Signature of Fee Owner Dat Application Received on 9/x/7 - q--6 Fee Pa _5-0 <3 Receipt No.a The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. V. j: Ytice Mar 11 NOTICE OF PUBLIC s;j"1 Lake P >E Rice HEARING O' ~� PLANNING COMMISSION - arsh Lake MEETING CW n c Wednesday, MAY 15, 1996 .''J '• Pee r j City Hall Council Chambers ' J - & - •o-< 690 Coulter Drive 4' T.-. Ira - -- -- *6 � � - - -—- Project: Rice Lake Manor Estates SES ,H. 12 -. PR�p� ,- Developer: Barry McKee / / Location: 8591 Tigua Circle ,,• � loti ileoleve - �-../k - II Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant, Barry McKee, is requesting preliminary plat of Lot 1, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor into two single family lots on property zoned RSF, and located at 8591 Tigua Circle, Rice Lake Manor Estates. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments:If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Shaimin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 2, 1996. 1 y Kimberly Jones& Stafford Nelson Joseph& Gayle Hautman Beverly Fiedler 8571 Tigua Lane 8551 Tigua Lane 8521 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David& Corrine Nagel Richard& Joanne Larson The Rottlund Company, Inc. 8550 Tigua Lane c/o MGM 2681 Long Lake Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 8590 Tigua Lane Roseville, MN 55113 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Klingelhutz Development Charles Adelmann, et al James & Sandra Jonasen 350 Hwy. 212 E. c/o Dependale Well Co. 8581 Mission Hills Lane P. 0. Box 89 1411 W. 97th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska,MN 55318 Bloomington,MN 55431 Mission Hills Limited Partnership do Tandem Properties 7808 Creekridge Ct., #310 Bloomington,MN 55439 CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC. CARVER COUNTY (612)448-5570 201 Chestnut St.N. FAX(612)448.5155 ABSTRACT 8 TITLE. P.O.Box 106 Dale B. Kutter Chaska,MN 55318 David E. Moonen April 15, 1996 Kevin LaCasse Greystone Real Estate Group 324 So Main St. Suite 280 Stillwater, MN 55082 According to the 1996 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers office the following persons are listed as owners of the property within Carver County, Minnesota, which lies within 500 feet to the following described property: Lot 1, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 1. Kimberly A. Jones & 6. The Rottlund Company, Inc. Stafford Nelson 2681 Long Lake Rd 8571 Tigua Ln Roseville, MN 55113 Chanhassen, MN 55317 7. Klingelhutz Development Co 2. Joseph & Gayle Hautman 350 Hwy 212 E 8551 Tigua Ln PO Box 89 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 3. Beverly A Fiedler 8. Charles Adelmann, etal 8521 Tigua Ln c/o Dependale Well Co Chanhassen, MN 55317 1411 W 97th St Bloomington, MN 55431 4. David T & Corrine A Nagel 8550 Tigua Ln 9. James C & Sandra A Jonasen Chanhassen, MN 55317 8581 Mission Hills Ln Chanhassen, MN 55317 5. Richard & Joanne Larson c/o MGM 10. Mission Hills Limited Partnership 8590 Tigua Ln c/o Tandem Properties Chanhassen, MN 55317 7808 Creekridge Cir. #310 Bloomington, MN 55439 Carver County Abstract & Title Co. , Inc. This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff,Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer ft., Phillip Elkin,Water Resources Coordinator DATE: May 8, 1996 SUBJ: Review of Lot Split for Lot 1, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor File No. 96-14 LUR - WETLANDS According to the wetland delineation performed by William Engelhardt and Associates, three wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows: North Basin is part of the Rice Marsh Lake wetland basin and is Type 1,2,3 at different points along the shoreline. This Wetland is on the Chanhassen Wetland Classification Map, the NWI Map, and the DNR Protected Waters Map. West Basin is an ag/urban wetland located along the western boundary of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the southwest; approximately 3/4 acres of wetland is on site. This wetland is part of City Wetland A24-3(1) and is mapped as PEMCd . This wetland has been delineated as Type 1/2 and drains to a ditch wetland that eventually drains into Rice Marsh Lake. Southeast Basin is also an ag/urban wetland part of the drainage system that connects the West Basin to Rice Marsh Lake. It has also been identified as Type 1/2 . Regulations The City administers the 1991 version of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). It does not appear that a wetland replacement plan will be necessary for this project; however, improvements or changes to the existing drainage ditch will require mitigation and permits. In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 Sharmin Al-Jaff Lot 1, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor Lot Split May 8, 1996 Page 2 feet and the buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. GRADING AND DRAINAGE Only minor grading is anticipated for utility installation and driveway construction for the new home site. This work will most likely occur when a building permit is issued for the new lot. Staff recommends that a detailed grading,drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan be submitted for review and approval by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The site contains wetlands and drainage swales which conveys runoff from the surrounding parcels through this site. A drainage easement should be dedicated over the wetlands and drainage ditches on both parcels to preserve the neighborhood drainage pattern. The drainage easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) proposes a trunk storm sewer system in the future (24-inch RCP) to replace portions of the drainage ditch. There are currently some existing storm sewers/culverts, as well as a small sediment basin, in place. According to records this system was constructed in the early 1980s in an attempt to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into Rice Marsh Lake. In conjunction with the Mission Hills development directly east of the site,a series of storm water ponds were constructed to pretreat some of the runoff prior to discharging into the site. Staff is not recommending at this time that any new improvements be constructed with this subdivision proposal. Therefore,the applicant shall be responsible for SWMP fees pursuant to City ordinance. Currently, the SWMP fees for water quality and quantity are $800 and$1,980 per acre,respectively. Wetlands are subtracted out from the gross acreage. These fees are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. The water service is located in the east boulevard of Tigua Lane. The water service will have to be extended from the main line to the home by the applicant or future property owner. Sanitary sewer will have to be extended up from the existing main adjacent to Rice Marsh Lake to service the home. This will also be required in conjunction with the building on the new lot. A permit will be required for the extension of sewer and water service to the house through the City's Building Department. The new lot will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges in accordance to City ordinances. Currently, these hookup fees are $1,115 for sewer and $1,460 for water (per unit). These fees are payable to the City at time of building permit issuance. Sharmin Al-Jaff Lot 1, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor Lot Split May 8, 1996 Page 3 STREETS Staff has been working with the applicant to look at future development potential of this site. Given the sensitive nature of the site, i.e. trees, wetlands, drainage ditches, future development may be limited to a private driveway until such time as the parcel to the south develops. At that time the easterly portion of the site may have the potential to access a public street. During the interim, a private driveway is proposed to be shared with Lot 2, Block 1 and the existing resident on Lot 1, Block 1 in addition to the new proposed lot. The existing driveway is proposed to be upgraded to meet the City's private driveway ordinance. Cross-access easements should be prepared and recorded. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Tract A, a detailed grading,drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 2. The applicant shall dedicate to the City drainage easements over all wetlands and drainage ditches. The drainage easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management fees pursuant to City ordinance. 4. Extension of sewer and water service to the new lot will require a permit from the City's building department. 5. The new lot will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges pursuant to City ordinance. 6. The private driveway should be upgraded to meet City ordinance. Cross-access easements shall be conveyed to benefiting properties. ktm c: Charles Folch,Director of Public Works g:lengldaveWricel ake.spr WETLAND IDENTIFICATION AND BOUNDARY DELINEATION REPORT PROJECT: TIGUA LANE PROPERTY, KEVIN LACASSE CHANHASSEN ,MINNESOTA, #95-214-44 PREPARED BY : WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES INC. Executive Summary The implementation of the Wetland Conservation Act has made the identification and delineation of wetlands vital in areas designated for development. A wetland identification and delineation for the Tigua Lane Property was completed in November of 1995. Jurisdictional wetlands were identified and delineated on the property. Objective The objective of this report is to identify any jurisdictional wetlands that may be potentially impacted during the development of the Tigua Lane Property and to delineate the boundaries of these wetlands. Project Location And Site Description The property is located in the City of Chanhassen in the S1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 13, Township 116N, Range 23W of Carver County, Minnesota. The property is Fast of Tigua Lane (figure 1). Off-Site Analysis Methods The Tigua Lane Property off-site analysis was conducted using the following materials; 1989 National Wetland Inventory Map(NWI), USGS Topographical Quadrangle Map, 1986 DNR Protected Waters Map(PW), 1994 Carver County Soil Survey(CCSS), 1991 U.S. Hydric Soils List(HSL) and the Carver County Hydric Soils List. On-site Delineation Note: All transition zones are established with upland and wetland points(see Appendix A for on-site determination forms). These upland and wetland points form a line called a transect. Vegetation, soils and hydrology are analyzed at these points and along the transect. Once a transition zone is established, vegetation, soils and hydrology(potential hydrology,topography) are used to establish the actual wetland boundary. The transition zone is the area along a given transect where a wetland becomes non-wetland. In most cases the wetland boundary is in the transition zone. The wetland boundary for W#1 was delineated only within the property boundary. Wetland W#1 was delineated using 3 transects(figure 7). T1 has a 2' transition zone. This area is along the utility dike and the wetland boundary is along the lower edge of the embankment. The edge is staked where hydrophytic vegetation ceases to be dominant and normal hydrology can no longer be assumed do to elevation. Subsurface soil and hydrology evaluations were not feasible do to frozen ground, but the boundary along the dike is apparent. T2 has a 15' transition zone. The dominant vegetation is Red Osier Dogwood, Box-Elder and Buckthorn(FAC-). The wetland boundary is along the toe of the utility dike where wetland vegetation is no longer dominant and reasonable hydrology can't be assumed. T3 has a 15' transition zone. The dominant vegetation is Dogwood, Box-Elder and Buckthorn in the transition zone. The wetland boundary is along the Buckthorn, White Oak(FACU) and Dogwood interface. Staking: The stakes delineating the edges of wetlands were marked as follows: (wetland ID) WB (# Stake sequence) Wetland W#1 was staked 1-10 Summary And Recommendations All information and forms concerning the field delineation can be found in Appendix A. The delineated edges must be surveyed and tied into the existing property survey. All projects must follow all applicable wetland ordinances. If any project impacts areas inside or near wetland boundaries mitigation may be required by the Local Governmental Unit(LGU-City of Chanhassen), Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers or other state and city agencies. All concerned agencies must be notified and the appropriate applications must be completed, so permits can be issued prior to any projects that will impact or mitigate any jurisdictional wetlands. This delineation report was completed by Stephen A. Albrecht, Agricultural Engineer, Training Certified Wetland Delineator, on December 13, 1995. moi/ Stephen A. Albrecht William R. Engelhardt Associates Inc. Consulting Engineers __.......:1_2_,... 0 105 -411 d I 'Re� a R FTU et.V0- J I `yy-E oq irn `',: `0 1 14 .tn URI ,j.L.4 E 1 . 3 ba 0 i warm . # ,I r L..* Su,aw CC i V Q nu 86TH 5T,W. E } 31 :r 5;i� Y WaIR S o u L-0u4-i•n C ' tiFay ' FIGURE 1 : LOCATION MAP Off-Site Analysis The Chanhassen Wetland Classification Map(figure 2) identifies 2 wetlands(A13-15(2) (A),A11- 7(1) (A)) within the property. Both of these wetlands are part of the Rice Marsh Lake wetland basin. The NWI Map(figure 3) identifies 2 wetlands(both PEMC) within the property. The DNR Protected Waters Map(figure 4) identifies Rice Marsh Lake as a protected water(1P). The Carver County Soil Survey(figure 5) indicates several areas of hydric soils within the property. The existence of hydric soil conditions(particularly Hm-Hamel Loam, Ex-Essexville Sandy Loam, Gl-Glencoe Clay Loam) combined with mapped wetlands indicated that potential wetland conditions existed on-site. The following hydric soils were identified during the off-site analysis; Hm(Hamel Loam) The HSL and Carver County Soils lists classify Hm as hydric. Ex(Essexville Sandy Loam) The HSL and Carver County Soils lists classify Ex as hydric. Gl(Glencoe Clay Loam) The HSL and Carver County Soils lists classify Gl as hydric. Organic Muck soils are present in Rice Marsh Lake Other site soils; Kb, Kc and Kf have Gl and Hm hydric inclusions. On-site Analysis Site Conditions The site was visited on November 24, 1995. The site was dry, no substantial precipitation had occurred recently. The ground was frozen so no boring information is available. Figure 6 shows the original topography of this site. Figure 7 shows that the site topography and hydrology were altered significantly during utility construction. Previously existing wetlands were altered permanently. A dike containing utilities was placed along the shoreline and culverts were installed. Methods All wetland determinations and delineations are done in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands(Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989) and the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual(U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 1987). The wetlands are classified according to the Cowardin System(Cowardin et. al 1979) and the Circular 39(Shaw & Fredine 1956). ,- ,... • • .." ;<.::::-:,---,..-' :::,:f: :: .v..4 fr.';",.';5. ;:i -:4 ;$4.• 54#7.V4.?,16- S'"9.4' 24';•• ••.-:A/•$ 51.'•, .- ...,•>AWS•/,,i'V „?..:•••• •.•...- ! 1 ':41. . • i*•#:50."):44P-e&e9g.W -`''''il ; rtIOF _ Ati .,,N,P40,,,,,.. ", ,01=-..`,,- ..-- • • ..... ! , .551 ,.„.., --,../...-.:,.,,..w RICE ..:WkR . 16,6. 4. ...t.,, , , ,, , ,,......,.... /. . LAKE• r': 1 a,..( .::..vio,,.. ,4,,,,, . I . • A1 -141•Y` 1... . ..:;:.4*.--c, al..1."":4 5...:',;„.:,,4 Zrz.."'.• i #M*,..... ..• -'4. ,,..e.,;:r -P-- ...-..- as .. -----::..v :• sig :.. -.-...::.' • ' rfl ............ . ...,:,::::i::- .0 .31,,Icia--•,-, _______ /• S I ' :'.' _ . , ..._, ...alii • . - FIGURE 2: CHANHASSEN WETLAND FIGURE - 3. NWI MAP . . . CLASSIFICATION MAP • • 1 ,. • ..---ir ,• - '.• :::-S::: "::::'',. ..--60,- :-.. -es- ... .,, _... ..71..- . . "-... -. , 1 :: 1/4. .•••••••••‘..... .:•lre.....;' ' ''?is•L 7-:-. ."-• - '- Isj....,"„........ f.A.P. ----i-r"r7- M _....- - -: - - ----,L 7i_ ..r.:r •- .,,:.. . , . • :74,44...4-t-.. : . - - -1.". .."c11';';`,-.--4.: •;•:* -• • 13 .- IV Rice .-.. .'r .--. . .-• '''. - , -\,- - i• .ars), . ;111 ..?‘41:'10t.- • • -:,''' ,,,, ,•,„+,. ik -. -c, :-.: _ Li„,-„,..; -f-t- `,-- -5-ie.,&,,,A4,.,..;.• -,.....;- "*.te",_, di,-.7 Art2,„- . .'" ' '''• -.. Ail .----....7.!' ii.• a;':7•41,' : 1'le- . , —.4.!--.' •,..."4 , -,.-,, - 401 p--- • / :1;4! '-'- 71• :if-,.-I: • - .: ±tIlt; • • • .-Z:- "::-77...1r0Oir-•-7,.:7i-.,..,;•,. .,..4. ,,r, • En 21• VOLAII I .-.7z.-7-1P ---,e. ..- • --,,., ,,fiteiglit•••4:,A.', ?if-,Vdi9A--!", .• • .. _ ._. ._. FIGURE 4: DNR FIGURE 5: SOIL SURVEY • • • • - • • PROTECTED WATERS . • . The three mandatory technical criteria are evaluated in the field using the following methods; Vegetation is identified using field guides and hydrophytic classification is determined using the National List Of Plant Species That Occur In Wetlands: Minnesota(USDI 1988). Soils are identified using the Carver County Soil Survey and hydric potential is characterized using the 1991 Hydric Soils of the United States and applicable county hydric soils lists. Field samples are taken to verify hydric soil conditions and are characterized using Munsell Soil Color Charts(1992). When site soils are sandy or coarse-textured alternative indicators are used to verify hydric soil conditions. Hydrology is determined using field indicators as listed in the 1987 and 1989 manuals. Site history and topography are also considered in hydrology determinations along with recent hydrology records. On-Site Determination The following areas were determined to be jurisdictional wetlands(figure 7 shows the approximate location and boundaries of these wetlands, consult the property boundary survey or plat for accurate wetland boundary locations); W#1 is part of the Rice Marsh Lake wetland basin and is Type 1,2,3 at different points along the shoreline. The dominant vegetation includes Reed Canary Grass(FACW), Red Osier Dogwood(FACW), Box-Elder(FACW ) and Green Ash(FACW). Hydrology is indicated by surface water along the shoreline and it is reasonable to assume that this fringe receives sufficient hydrology during the growing season. No direct hydrology was observed along the edge due to the frozen ground. The source of hydrology for W#1 is runoff from the surrounding area Rice Marsh Lake. W#1 drains to Rice Marsh Lake. Hydric soils are mapped throughout the area. Questionable Areas: P1: The low area behind the dike identified as P1 in Figure 7 has been greatly disturbed. Storm sewer brings water in and out of this area. This area is a utilized ponding area that has developed wetland characteristics. This low area is part of the storm water system and if properly maintained would not be considered a wetland. Several areas south of the driveway have hydrophytic vegetation(Reed Canary Grass) and must investigated further when the ground is not frozen if any substantial construction is to take place south of the driveway. These areas are at best Type 1 wetlands resulting from storm water drainage. ______;_,-/,,,__:, ...,_//. \ .. fie-- _ / . / \.---I I . - • I _, e ...: • . • co . . ii '..-is *.-. . --,::: - '� n� :!:,!••••••,. .L:. .'i l.....;0.44A-4---"i.37-s-;:':-Ii • ti :.fy �►i. . .�rreY4.•y;•..t. 1.:,-.2z. *' .._:7;•.';:.. :.,........ . ......1.7::.:47'.: .. ::f. .., .41.1 _ V` k . Lrr , n +.. Cilij w1'aT '!,t '� _...../ . i Ili - • • . ..,771,1 it r, . . . . . .., .... -.... a., . _ , 4., ... .. ifs r. t% Vi1i ._,j _ f % ... e .- . . -. . .....„._......... , : 4 4....,,. .- 15‘. ? . 1 ,.)11:1_,,_., 1 ‘\i,.(ij ;',...,. .• 1 . . ,„.....,• ,....., ... • / , - :, ..._... ...„ !coll.,. 1 p 1 t• _. _ . . .._. olid ,, , .. , ...-• Wr _ t / • ... ' ' . •r.•. .. - . 9 ... _ •' . .(7.. / / . jr3..:.. .,. _ ;. la\ . • �7 51st .. 6 `3�`a .l�� l JT t� {- }....2:06.1 \y ,..i.: ..:.!...;...;";;,..2. •i ,kJ ., _ ,l. 't,3Y • - •• �'✓_'.`ti , .. 4% '••.; �.aS�...::I. ri r �4,f•f Q'-`. r_—� §.i A'�• _ r� t}_r •-{ " :.u. �. C.: ` - L.. .'?• "r.'} 4"% 1 e!` ✓+r a ..I 'a." ^' .'ri- r)a'.-1. a}s v+ 7�f'.. Lr;• „ • '4A .1', -" i ' kfT? 7 i ?T, V may'-;r a r% , }� yq -. ' . l' :- ^ as'`1r1.4! 4....“.,?... ' :. r.i! ,;i .r_ ... 1•. � t _ 75"'•i,*it ,,,`'`} }. 3�.,.r�.:� �� r ''�4 � Is _ it:� 1!.- • •^ j � T�'t-il { 'G• •`- -ti-f-.: c1 ; _ �� - „...,..,.:44:‘,L :fit 'JET .‘el �ir• _ - iZ rte. w _ —' K tisK 'i HP - _ �''r-474.,ac i;'47v., �•, tf4,•. .r_,—.iF L' -\ _ ;4' t”! .•C:'.. ..e...---r- Pi ..13.?ice• t. �'�-Z-4-. S?�`_ q z "•?(v �-�. �• C • ..''''''.'1.1:.• .�1�'ii l '`' '� i.s - „�-'--`-17--`,. N. 1 M1 L' a; •rq b k • .- � gi- F �,.y ^1- yt- F i� s$ •. `` 1,..,..41. ;,,..1,14.-.--4. s • A. r • •1.i "". '. wT"'f"4..i �t �1 dTy 4r"rN` .- ` ‘ • Ua. _..--,•_-_,....;.;-7::.:- �..'��.`^!"•_f . _• . •`_: is �. n.�.>. •—nu. r. t�l ..+'•• `V.?`.:. :• Vi`"'rlr • • •., '"•%--- i EB.:r 0 Z 4- . -- ' . A,' i . 1 ., /4,3 � 1 0 e i- s • as - //\ ,, ,..___ ----.-------------''I.'r::----c... Ili ,‘.ili : \ 41 \ i \ V,... i ''-'I 4: 4 S °Z. ze ii 12 i*2. tr: " ‘1.S.:* \ k O h \ 0 1; t In 1Yl�d _ •' 3 •� `a gt) ° I. �'" d% i ii i tn i LE IL -0 t Nir, 6 \----._.___:'eo- ---gi z / • p. .1 I. 7, ztli,/ ,,,- *0. c I .3 ; Pc; lc III- ilk . _,- / 4...., .(..:„; le, lat.)..,10. 1 1 , mil rte . .e a+ \` I i O % -s\' 0 • \ \ .--- -..... ......".),..74,,1.7a, - It C:) j 5140 0 , 77, / : a -/ - - 15C..";11>s. \ \ °... el: .--) ''.- 7.. .'VI ..:---*--, ..%- V ‘,...6„, T 0 --- ; \ \ *..'I.>.:44..i., X \• i'IS 4‘1..t.1 .'61,1? . \ • .'-'- t Of ' , tit" d' ' 0 e>. .irt • if In \ \ y - \ 00 </. \o tio, Eta c!i \ \61:3,, V 41 \ \ C:. , \ a E ,\ `tea ,3 \\ 81 t `,' 1\, N N M \ � 9 a tiN • \ •, s c:42_ \. 9QoZgs=D ; • S \ \•• �t---`'�; \ • ' , // - at ' t , Cr • biD�, �bh 41 f r� ___ 4F1r7 . OJ a \ � \ Qe ;cGdURE7 7: W Eiji.' & '' ILI = ...J v CITY OF tt.-;41_ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff,Planner II FROM: Steve A.Kirchman,Building Official 4:0\6) DATE: May 6, 1995 SUBJECT: 96-8 SUB and 96-1 WAP(8591 Tigua Cir.,Rice Lake Manor Estates,Barry McKee) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped !CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, APR 12 1996, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. Background: Inspections division records indicate the building was originally constructed in 1980. The building was setback 12 feet from the east property line. There are no records of additional building permits after 1980. Analysis: The proposed lot split survey shows three structures not shown on the 1980 survey. 1. A fence which appears to belong to a neighbor is shown on the north property line. There is no record of a permit for this fence. Permits are required for fences(CCC 20-1017),and a fence may not be built on adjoining property (CCC 20-1019). Staff has no way of determining when the fence was built or if the applicant was aware of the encroachment. The property to be split must meet code requirements, necessitating, at a minimum, removal of the section of fence violating the code. The applicant may wish to work with the neighbor in the removal of the noncomplying portion of the fence. 2. What appears to be a deck is shown on the northwest corner of the house. Although the original permit appears to include a deck, it was not shown in its current location. It may have been built differently at the time of original construction or added later. A deck added later would have required a building permit. The applicant should determine when the deck was built and obtain an after the fact permit if a permit would have been required at the time of its construction. 3. A structure is shown extending over the east property line. No structure regulated by the building code may cross a property line. This structure was not shown on the original survey,nor is there a record of a building permit for its construction. Any structure Sharmin Al-Jaff May 6, 1996 Page 2 regulated by the code will require a permit and must be altered to comply with the building code and city code. Recommendations: 1. Remove fence or portion of fence which is noncomplying with city code. 2. Determine construction period for structure at the northwest corner of the property and work with Inspections Division staff to obtained permits and inspections,if any are required. 3. Remove the structure on the east side of the dwelling,or obtain a permit to alter the structure to meet building and zoning code requirements. g:\safety\saklmemos\plansMcKee CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 1, 1996 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, Nancy Mancino, Bob Skubic, Jeff Farmakes, and Don Mehl MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; John Rask, Planner I; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer; and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II PUBLIC HEARING: AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE TEMPORARY DISPLAY OF BOATS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HWY. 7 AND 41, SEVEN-FORTY ONE CROSSING CENTER, PBK INVESTMENTS, INC. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you John. Any questions for staff at this time? From anyone. Joyce: Yeah I have a question. They're requesting an interim use permit but I look on the application, it says conditional use. Rask: Yeah. That I believe, in the district interim uses, outdoor display is an interim use in that district. Boat sales are not a conditional use or interim use or permitted use. I don't believe, I think that was just an oversight on the applicant's part. Joyce: I guess the way I'm reading interim use is the temporary type of thing. Rask: Correct. Joyce: Conditional, I've got the zoning things out of city code, would be like an annual type of situation where they apply? Aanenson: They don't have to re-apply. Generally it runs with the land but they normally are inspected to make sure they're complying with conditions. Joyce: So would this case be subject to that? Rask: Yes it would. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Joyce: I mean if it was approved, they would have to apply annually? Rask: They wouldn't have to apply annually. With the interim use permit you can set a date for termination of that use. It could be a particular event or it could just be a date at some time in the future. But as part of the whole process we do review it annually to make sure, to determine compliance with the conditions. Aanenson: Yeah, and failure to comply with conditions may be cause for revocation. Joyce: That leads to my second question. What's the enforcement mechanism on something like this? Rask: It'd be a periodic review to insure that the conditions are being met. Joyce: And if they're not, they're fined or something like that? Rask: That's an option. Generally the approach we take is a notice of violation until it becomes an ongoing problem and then we'll either, citations are a possibility or court action to gain compliance. Joyce: Thank you. Mancino: John, excuse me. Go ahead. Farmakes: Are there boats there now? Rask: Yes, that's correct. We have, we did receive some complaints approximately a year ago from tenants in the building. We did send notices over the last year. We did get compliance on a couple of occasions. Back in about February of this year, the boats reappeared. We sent them notice again stating that they had an option to apply for an interim use permit. If we didn't receive that, we'd begin legal action to abate the problem. Mancino: And what was the nature of the complaints from the other tenants? Rask: It primarily had to do with the parking of boats in prime parking stalls. There were a couple in handicapped parking stalls from time to time. I think that problem was taken care of. The boats parked to the rear of the building were providing an obstruction to delivery trucks to get around. We have had the fire marshal up there to investigate on several occasions. I don't think he ever found them to be a problem in their location but it did prevent delivery trucks from going around. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Mancino: Are there two accesses to the back of the building at this point? One at the east end and one at the west end? Rask: Correct. Mancino: And were there boats also out last summer there? Rask: Correct. Mancino: So this has been going on, the outdoor usage has been going on for approximately. Rask: A little over a year. Mancino: A little over a year. And are we not John looking at two issues here. One is the request for an interim use permit for outdoor display, but secondly is really that it is not a permitted use to be selling boats in the area even indoors, correct? Rask: Correct. The only district that boat sales are allowed are the BF and the BG districts. Boat sales are not allowed in the neighborhood business district. At the time the business located we were under the impression that it would be selling life jackets, fishing tackle, sporting good types of items so we did consider this to be a neighborhood oriented retail establishment. It was kind of a stretch at the time but it did seem to meet that definition. We were aware there would be some boats in the building. As I mentioned in the report, we do not require business licenses so we don't know exactly what they're going to be selling. A lot of times we don't interact with the occupant of the building until they request a sign permit or if they're going to do any remodeling to the building. In this case they did both and on the building permit we had indicated that outdoor storage or display would not be permitted. Mancino: And so tonight you're asking the commission just to make a recommendation for the interim permit for outdoor display? Not for whether it should be a permitted use in the business neighborhood district? Rask: Correct. Farmakes: I know that the boats that are outdoors, or one of them anyway, is way too large to be indoors in that building. If I recall, when the business first started out it was an accessory business with small, very small type boats, runabouts or less. Has the nature of the business changed? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Rask: It appears to. Farmakes: Within the last year that has occurred? Rask: Yes. It seems that they've gone more to boat sales and away from the small accessory items or the sporting good type items. I think as you'll hear from the applicant in a minute here, is that they do believe that their clientele is in the neighborhood there. A lot of their sales in that area and it is their belief that they are serving a neighborhood function in that respect. And what the staff has said in the report is that, we feel that no. That is not a neighborhood oriented service. I don't think people, it's not something you just stopped in after work and buy. The district is intended to meet the daily needs of residents, whether it's a convenience store, the daycare. Things like that that are currently in the building. Mancino: Okay, thank you. And I'll listen to the applicant now. Any other questions? Thank you. Would the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Diane Mitchell: Do you want me at the podium? Mancino: Please. State your name and address please. Diane Mitchell: Do you want my home address or the address of our business? Mancino: Both please. Diane Mitchell: Okay. My name is Diane Mitchell and I represent the Seven-Forty One Crossing Center and PKB Investments. The business is located at 5500 Wayzata Boulevard in Minneapolis. My address is 12304 Taupe Avenue North in Plymouth. We are requesting a special temporary use permit for our tenant, Westin Marine, to display boats in designated areas of the parking lot. There had been some concerns in the past about boats that were displayed because of I think the location of the boats. I don't believe that there are any tenants in the center that at this time are objecting to how they have conformed with where they are placing the boats. The tenant was selling boats initially from the time that he became a tenant and submitted a plan to the city, which clearly showed that he would have boats stored and be selling boats in that location. He installed two overhead garage doors which had not been in the building prior to his entering so it was very clear that he would be selling boats. There was not an objection and that has not been an objection. What they have found is that in trying to run their business at that location, they do not have, there isn't a real good visibility from either of the highways. It isn't clear what the nature of the business is and to be able to display a boat, two boats, whatever the number of boats, they feel is actually necessary in order for them to remain in business. They are in a position right 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 now where they have determined that if they cannot in some way have some kind of outdoor display, they really cannot function in that location any longer. This is obviously a concern to us. We presently have 2,000 square feet unoccupied in that center. They occupy 3,930 square feet. We're then up to almost 6,000 square feet unoccupied or 23% of that building. I think you probably know that that does affect the assessed value of the building. It becomes a hardship and ultimately it could affect the tax base and that type of thing. You know we've been working very hard to try to keep the standards up with that building and maintain and make improvements. We want to continue to do that. Rental revenues obviously are a factor of being able to... What we're hoping is that rather than allowing us either to have boats or not have boats outside, we've tried to determine the area in the parking lot that we feel are not used by the other tenants. Are at the end of the building that Westin Marine occupies. Are away from regular traffic patterns to not cause any obstruction or any problems to any of our customers. Or any of the other tenants or anyone that would be using the facility. There wasn't a specific request for the number of boats. I realize that the area we designated could hold a large number of boats. What we're hoping is to receive recommendation as to what the city would feel is appropriate. If it's one boat or it's two boats or it's one boat in one location and one in another, you know we're looking for working something out to try to help a business maintain and yet keep the surroundings, keep everything looking good. We want the center to look good too. You know we want to keep it full. We want to bring in business. So therefore a specific amount was not requested. This is something that we feel we would take part in also policing. Make sure that the tenant does comply. If there should be a specific, you know something established as to just where a boat could be. What the size of the boat could be. You know whatever the requirements might be. The area that we've determined is also on the Highway 41 side. The center is set down in so it does almost create somewhat of a natural berm on that side. I tried to drive around to different areas surrounding the building and see if it is offensive or what can be seen from the other neighborhoods. From the spots that I've gone to, I can't see the boats. So you know we feel that we're trying to do it in a way to maintain the best possible situation for everyone because you know, I fear for the outcome if we aren't able to come to some kind of a solution to help our tenant. And I think that's all I have. If you have any questions. Mancino: I just have a couple. When this came about, when there was a need for display of the boats, why didn't anyone from your company come to the city at the time and ask for an interim use permit at that time? Why has it taken a year for this to come about and for us to act on it? Diane Mitchell: Well you know, if I understand the question correctly, I'm not sure that, you know until we received the letter saying that there was a complaint about the fact that they had a boat there, I'm not sure that we were aware that it was a problem and when we did realize that there was a complaint and that this was potentially a problem, that is when we 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 started working with the city to see what we could do. And that was when we found that there are some of the temporary use permits that are available that we may be able to fall within those guidelines. And also hoping that you know if we could establish something, that maybe we could set it up for a short term. See how it works for everyone and obviously then it would be up for review at whatever the designated time period is. So that we're not asking for this to be changed or to make any official changes as to that area. Mancino: And what if other tenants have a visibility problem? How do you see us working with those other tenants? I noticed that there are some, you have some vacant areas and as you get new tenants in, how are they going to become more visible and have a presence on TH 41 and TH 7? Diane Mitchell: Well actually, you know I...personally I did not think that it blocked the visibility for the other tenants. And we don't want to just keep one tenant happy. We want to keep all of our tenants happy and we work closely with our tenants and if that should happen, then I think we would have to adjust whether or not the boats could be there. If it started to affect another tenant...then we're not achieving what we want either. Joyce: I have one question. This time frame that we're talking about I assume would be seasonal so the boats come in. Are you suggesting you something here or you don't know? Diane Mitchell: We're not. We're not suggesting. I mean we're looking for, you know give them a chance. Joyce: Well you wouldn't have boats out there in December, right? Or would you? Or January. Diane Mitchell: They could have one boat out there just so people could see that they are, you know that they do have boats inside. That they are open. That it is still there. Joyce: Do you think that they're concerned about the season? I mean they'd like to be, I was over there today and they have like 8 boats out there. I assume because it's a busy season for them obviously. I guess I'm asking, could we possibly restrict how many boats are out there per like a certain season they can have X amount and maybe off season. Mancino: Certainly. Certainly, we can be that specific. Diane Mitchell: I'd appreciate that. Joyce: Okay, thank you. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Mancino: Thank you very much. Can I have a motion to open for a public hearing please? Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please come up and state your name and address. You're all not here for this, okay. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Farmakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: The public hearing is closed. Comments from commissioners on the interim use permit for temporary display. Don. Mehl: I went out to the location on Friday, late morning, and I counted the boats out there. There were 14. It appeared to be, I think there were 3 pontoon boats. There were 3 or 4 power boats that were quite large and the balance of them were smaller type boats. There were I think 4 of them parked behind the building. There was one parked at the end of the building in the drive area. They were parked in the short space right immediately in front of the building, as well as the long space going north and south. And some of the large power boats and the pontoons of course are long so they had to park them either parallel with the curb, which was not, you know the parking spaces were going head on in parking but boats had to be parked along the curb or angled in so they took more than one parking space. As many as maybe 3 for the pontoons. I drove through there and I tried to look at the whole center and to me that many boats in that area was just not aesthetically right for the whole area. It just didn't fit with the other shops and restaurants and the other types of businesses in there. I think there could congestion problems perhaps in the drive through area. I know there's no parking spaces on the end of the building but yet there was a boat there. So I could see that as maybe being a problem. It's not permitted now, for storage or sales. It seems like the applicant maybe I didn't understand but it almost sounded like a contradiction. Wanted to make the produce more visible, you know by having them out there but yet the applicant stressed they were tucked down and you really couldn't see them. I didn't quite follow that. I guess I would be inclined to deny it unless we could say limit the number of boats to say a maximum of three and place them either directly behind or directly in front and not along that long north/south parking area. Mancino: We certainly have the ability to limit the number and specify timing. You know what months out of the year. And also where the locations will be. The designated location. Mehl: Yeah, I would be supportive of that. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: This community's had regulated use for some businesses for a long time. I recall the development that, when it was being built or up for planning. There was a large neighborhood contingent of homes that came in in regards to a shopping center going there. They were quite vocal in their opposition to that and I think one of the important things that was worked out on that issue was that it was neighborhood service. And I don't think by any stretch of the imagination could boats that I saw stored out there be...neighborhood service. And they also, the fact that perhaps that business should not be in that location. It's not that the business shouldn't be in Chanhassen. It's just that maybe that's not the place for that business. We deal with this all the time. We have car dealers that want to come in. Store their equipment. We have other types of businesses. U-Haul I can think of for instance that would like to park their units up front by the highway so that they have visible presence. We have boat storage that...like to have their boats storage out so people know that they store boats there. We have areas where permitted uses for businesses are in our community. They've been planned. And we have other areas where other uses are not allowed and it seems to me in this particular area that it hasn't been allowed at any point, but there are boats there. As I understand it, one of the applicants tenant's made the complaint so we have an issue of not even the neighbors coming in and complaining but...tenant in the operation. Your point in the argument that was made by the applicant is that the boats aren't really objectionable because you can't see them but the reason the tenant wants them out there is because they need the visibility to stay in business. It doesn't hold up. I can see where, if I was selling boats, I would like to have a 40 foot long sign out there of a boat. It's not a sign but a boat sitting out in the middle in the parking lot certainly would suffice as that. I think we open up a big can of worms as we allow that type of use in that location for other types of businesses to display their wares. And be consistent is usually the best policy when we follow these kinds of things and I would move for denial based on the staff report. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Bob. Skubic: Well I certainly hate, well I'm sure the applicant knows their business and they feel like they need to display their boats and see all the boats in order to be competitive, and I certainly respect that. And I hate, it'd be unfortunate if they had to leave the city and move elsewhere in order to conduct their business. We certainly would like to have the businesses and what they contribute to the city. However, I like to think of alternatives and ways we can make this work and I think you talked about seasonal displays, limiting the number of boats and the location but there's an additional burden to that. You have to police it and enforce it and keep track of what's going on there and there's always a tendency to put more boats in, or to deviate from that. And the city goes through a lot of effort to zone these 8 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 areas. As Jeff pointed out, the residents are frequently input their feelings on this. I'd be reluctant to approve an interim use for this site. Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: I basically agree with the other commissioners. I agree with Don. I feel that there's some overkill out there with those boats and I'm real uncomfortable with all those boats being out there and suddenly this is an issue a year after the fact. I appreciate the business and economic issues to the applicant. I mean this is part of their business and they need to lease that space but I'd have to say that I couldn't support it either unless there was some way of working out a very, very specific methodology there of 1 or 2 boats and a certain time frame but you know they've shown them now in the past that they just put boats out there regardless of any sort of enforcement so I guess I'd have to say I'd deny it at this point. Mancino: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, I think staffs report is right on the money. Nothing new to add. When we put in highway business, we worked real closely over many years with the neighborhood. It was real clear what we intended to do and it was not to put in a boat dealership there. It obviously doesn't work. It just doesn't work there. Mancino: My comments are not any different than those that were just previously said. It is a neighborhood business district. The intent is in keeping it to serve the neighborhood, and I do go over and frequent the shopping center quite a bit and it just doesn't seem, I agree, to belong in a neighborhood district. So may I have a motion please. Conrad: Can I just make one comment? ...a neighborhood business is not really a boat sales. It's clearly not intended to sell boats. It's not. Yet there are some ways to make a center site, even on a neighborhood level and a boat event on a weekend could do that so I'll end my discussion with that. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion please. Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the interim use permit based on the findings presented in the staff report dated April 17, 1996, 1 through 5. Mancino: A second please. Joyce: I'll second that. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Mancino: All those in favor, oh. Any discussion? Fannakes moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Interim Use Permit #96-1 based on the following findings: 1. Outdoor display of boats for sale is not a permitted use in the BN District. 2. A boat dealership is inconsistent with the intent of the BN zoning district. 3. Boat sales are not an appropriate interim use at this location based on the purpose and intent of interim uses as stated in the zoning ordinance. 4. Outdoor display of boats for sale is inconsistent with other uses in the BN zoning district. 5. The proposed use is aesthetically incompatible with adjoining land uses consisting of the neighborhood oriented retail center and residential developments. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, MAPLEWOOD INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED AT 3531 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE, ARUNDEL ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Robert Crippa 3503 Maplewood Circle Pam & Chuck Rienstra 3511 Maplewood Circle Bill & Danielle Modell 3521 Maplewood Circle Paul Modell 3441 Shore Drive Bob Hebeisen 3607 Ironwood Road Leo & Carole Breitman 8549 Ironwood Road Gerry Wenkus 3531 Maplewood Circle Gary Peterson 315 East Lake Street, Wayzata Bob Swearengin 3530 Maplewood Circle 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Shannin Al-Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: So Dave there would be a pond created on Lot 2. Hempel: Part of Lot 2 and it would expand south into the neighboring property. Where it exists today. Mancino: Into the adjacent property. And will there still be, what I saw, will there still be the pipe that goes down underneath? Hempel: The pipe will remain as it is today. It may be necessary to extend that with the construction of the house on the design of the house. Mancino: How much, I don't know how easy this is for you to show us but how many people's property drain into this now? Now that we have Highway 7 and that re-routing, where is the water coming from? Where is most of the water coming from? Hempel: Most of the water is coming from Lots 3, 4, 6 and 5. There may be some additional from Lot 7 going through there. Plus all of the runoff from Maplewood Circle. You have the front yards draining out to the street and going down through that property today. Mancino: And what about the lots on Maplewood Circle that are north there that you didn't circle? Where do those drain? Hempel: The front yards drain out to Maplewood Circle. The rear yards drain out back towards Highway 7. Mancino: Okay. Any questions for Dave at this time? Joyce: I do have one question in regards to the water, holding water where you suggest there. Is that going to be a condition in the recommendation or are you going to use that as kind of an incentive type thing? Hempel: No. We're working with the applicant to acquire the easement for it and credit their SWMP fees in turn for the easement. We're not looking at constructing a pond at this time. That would be at a later date. Joyce: Would that be something we would look at as a condition? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Mancino: When you saw at a later date, does that mean when the house is constructed on that lot? Hempel: I think it has to do more with the capital improvements with the Surface Water Management Plan. I think it is outlined 5 years maybe down the plan. I'm not positive on that but we can certainly check on it. It's not a high priority at this time, and adding one additional house will not significantly increase runoff to the area. Skubic: Wouldn't it be more timely to put it in when the construction is going on on that lot? Hempel: There's really not much construction other than sewer and water service into the house. It's a little excessive to put that type of condition I believe... Mancino: Because everybody's generating. Hempel: That's correct. It should be more of a public improvement project or a Surface Water Management Project. Aanenson: Maybe just to add to what Dave is saying is that part of the storm water management plan, we put together a long capital improvement plan identifying high priority problem areas. As Dave indicated, this is on the program, it's just years down the road. As Dave has stated that we don't believe that this is making the situation worst. We have identified that there needs to be some correction in there and we're programming into the long term plans to fix it but we felt it would be onerous at this time to expect one person to solve the problem when it's a little bit larger. But it is being programmed in the capital improvements. Mancino: So it certainly adds to the problem. Aanenson: No. Mancino: It won't take it away. Or are you telling me there's a net. Hempel: There's an opportunity here to...impact the current situation down there. Mancino: Thank you. Done with the staff report? Al-Jaff: I'm done. We're recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission. Gerry Wenkus: Good evening Madam Chair, commission members. My name is Gerry Wenkus. My address is 3531 Maplewood Circle. The property being discussed tonight. I'm here representing the current owners of the property, Steve Arundel and Arne Wasberg and as stated, we're trying to do a subdivision for a future building site upon which I would possibly construct another home. That's my business. I'm in the building business. I think that the applicants would be receptive to the proposed drainage pond that Dave is talking about and I think currently the situation that we're in now, it seems to work quite well but I think Dave's concerns were the water quality into the lake and I think that by enlarging it a little bit it will create more of a sediment than carry out. But the amount of water going into that pond right now has been significantly reduced with Mr. Durr developing the property to the west. So if there's any questions, I'm here to answer those. Mancino: Any questions? Thank you. May I have a motion to open the public hearing please, and a second. Mehl moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come up. State your name and address. Charles Rienstra: Hi. My name's Charles Rienstra. I live at 3511 Maplewood Circle. I have a couple, a few concerns about the property that's been developed. I've lived in this area for 20 years. It was originally developed as 8 lots. Even the majority of the lots there have been subdivided ...concerned about that continuing through the neighborhood. About the drainage. I've been there 20 years. I've seen what drainage comes down there. Every lot there, 8 lots, some part of them drain down that road. All the lots on the south side of the road, basically the entire lot drains down there. We get a half inch rain, there's a river down Maplewood Circle. Until Gerry put that culvert in, and it wasn't a city put culvert, there were times in the winter where it was a skating rink down there, where the water puddled. The runoff also comes from Greenbriar. It comes across my back yard in the lots behind me drains towards my house and then turns in the swales down in this property. I've seen it first hand. I'm not an engineer but it doesn't take a scientist to know water goes downhill. And it's a problem. I think it's addressed properly and the concerns are met, I don't think they are to be handled but I think it's a major problem that has to be addressed. The other thing, you have 8 lots there. There's 31 licensed vehicles on that 8 lots, 3 boats and 4 dogs. They say it's not going to affect the traffic. It is. I sat Sunday, 13 cars, none of them belonging to Maplewood Circle drove up and down that road in a 2 hour period. This is a dead end. Are we going to have a 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 problem with traffic? This is our access is going to be limited on that circle. I bring it up. Snow removal is another point that's got to be brought up. It's a tight area down there. So those are my basic concerns. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Bill Modell: Hello. I'm Bill Modell. My wife Danielle. We live at 3521 Maplewood Circle and...just being here tonight that I have concerns about the proposed development. I'm the closest resident that's most affected by this proposed development. I'm just to the east on Lot 6, right next to number 5. I have many personal concerns affecting my own property and I've submitted a list which is in your staff report. She's got the pointer there on number 6. That's my lot. One of my personal concerns is turn to your page in your staff report. There are many. I'll make it as brief as possible. The key concern is the interruption of the natural flow and the drainage of the storm water that runs around, down the street, through the neighboring yard and my yard's the last one so what my concern is, if this is changed or stopped up or if the natural flow is changed or lost in any way, what's going to happen? Am I going to have a wet basement? Things like that. Now my back yard now already has like a creek almost, or just a low spot where all the water comes in the back yards and down into the neighboring Lot 5. I'm concerned that there's going to be pooling of water...and then the second concern. Mancino: Excuse me. You did hear Mr. Hempel or Dave say that it shouldn't be any worse than it is now? Bill Modell: Right. Mancino: And that it is a priority on the city's list. Bill Modell: Sure. Mancino: Now when that will actually come up to the top, we don't know. I mean I can't answer that for you tonight. Bill Modell: Well yeah, no. I understand that. What I thought I heard from him is that adding another house isn't going to add any more water or more drainage. Mancino: More runoff. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Bill Modell: Runoff towards the lake. What I'm concerned about is adding another house. What's going to happen upstream. You know if we change things down there, how it's going to affect the water that's running through this empty lot now. Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can address that at this point. Right now there is a house on the lot. The drainage does go on the property line. The east property line. Until you get towards the southern part of the lot and then it does head westerly through the back portion of the lot. When they built on that lot, one of the requirements in the conditions of approval is that they submit a grading and drainage, erosion control, tree removal plan for staff to review and approve prior to issuance of the building permit. At that time there's another opportunity for us to assure that the drainage patterns for that neighborhood is maintained. That's another reason why we suggested to push the house further to the west on the lot. Leave the eastern part of the lot alone as it drains today. Mancino: Could it possibly even be better? Hempel: It would not be any better. Mancino: It would not be any better, okay. Bill Modell: Okay...we can talk further on that but my second concern is where this proposed driveway would be getting access to the property. From what I see there, from what I've got according to the city's staff report, it shows a driveway on or near the property line on the eastern property line which abuts my property and I'm wondering about a couple things that have to do with that as far as like when the snow removal goes on in the winter, where is the snow going to go? Is it going to end up on my property? Is it going to make more trouble out in the street where we already have problems when there's a significant snowfall. And also it's a big concern because my bedroom window's like 30 feet from the property line and I just don't want a driveway there... Mancino: Let me see if we can answer a couple of those questions. Sharmin, as far as the private driveway goes back to that second lot that will be constructed, how far away from the Modell's property line does it need to be? Can it be right on the property line? Al-Jaff: By ordinance it can go up to the property line. Mancino: Okay. Does that mean the paving part? Al-Jaff: Correct. There is a 30 foot wide easement. Most probably it will be in the middle. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I'll touch on that a little bit too. There is currently a storm sewer pipe running along that easterly property line. We would recommend that the driveway be shifted to the westerly portion of that 30 foot easement to maintain that storm sewer and also maintain an overflow drainage swale should the water, we get an intense storm with spring runoff and icy conditions, that the water has the capability of going over the curb and following that property line back, as it does today. So we don't want to disturb that drainage pattern that's out there today so we would recommend that the driveway be shifted to the westerly point. Mancino: At least 10 feet over? Hempel: Right. Mancino: To allow an easement. Bill Modell: You're saying that would be 10 feet off the property line? Mancino: Yes. It could go there. And you can certainly talk with the applicant and have discussions with the applicant about where that does go. Bill Modell: Okay. I guess another concern also that I stated in my list of concerns in the staff report would be again noise from the driveway being on the bedroom side of my house or on the sleeping areas. And also increased traffic flow, which my neighbor touched upon as well. As far as how many cars are going to be coming past my house. That is a dead end street and it gets plenty of traffic as well. Another big concern for my wife and I is we like privacy in our back yard because this house, if you look at that picture would, that would... my back yard and I have a very private back yard now and that was part of my reason for purchasing the property and I was hoping it would stay that way. And now I didn't see this coming. That's a key concern is privacy. There are ways that that can be addressed with trees, with fences, that kind of stuff but I'd like... I guess I think all these different concerns could lead to decreased property value, and it's not the money I care about you know monetary wise. It's the neighborhood in general aesthetically. I don't think, you know I guess if it was me in that house, I wouldn't want a driveway within you know, from me to him from our front door and that's what, it brings that driveway over to the other side, it's going to be cutting right through the front yard of this other house, which is virtually non- existent or very small the way it is. The front of that house would be all driveway. And it's like I say, from studying the staff report, this is some of my personal concerns. I mean they're there. You can look at them but what I see from studying the staff report, it appears to me that the city has a major concern with the drainage. They've addressed it. They've addressed it in a large couple of paragraphs in the report and I think it's a problem and they 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 know it's going to be a problem and if it's not dealt with properly, you know it's going to be a future problem. And what happens if they grant the...working at the time but what happens in a year or two when it does back up or something does go wrong. Where do I turn? Mancino: What is the process Dave for that? If there has been construction and it's not, something wasn't done correctly. Hempel: It would revert back to the applicant to resolve the problem. Bill Modell: I guess in closing I just wanted to say that I do believe that the development would have a very negative impact on the existing neighborhood because the neighborhood is totally developed in my opinion and after hearing the concerns that I have, I hope that the city and the neighborhood would support me in seeing that the approval of this development be denied. Thank you. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them right now. Joyce: I have a question, maybe for you Dave. You said a key point was the house looking into your house. Isn't this area lower than the other homes on the other lots? I thought I read in there that it's a few feet lower than most of the other. Hempel: It's probably equal in elevation to the property to the east, as you continue. The south part of the lot is lower but where the building pad is for this whole, and the type of home that would be constructed, I'm envisioning the house would be up a little bit higher. Joyce: Okay but it's not, what I'm trying to say is equal to the other houses. Is it going to be overlooking any house there now? Hempel: It depends on the house type. If they do a rambler. If they'd like a rambler lookout, then they would elevate the homes somewhat. Joyce: I'm trying to remember how, I went out and looked at the site and I'm just thinking, it felt to me it looked lower but you know I couldn't tell. Thank you. That's my only question. Bill Modell: Anybody have any other questions? Okay, thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Paul Modell: My name is Paul Modell. I live at 3441 Shore Drive and the person you just heard from is my son. Bill lives around the corner from me on Maplewood Circle. I'd like to refer to Bill and Danielle's property as the Modell property and of course the proposed as the subject property. My understanding that the Modell property has 130 feet of frontage on 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Maplewood Circle. It has one driveway. My understanding is that the subject property has 50 feet, or there abouts, on Maplewood Circle and it's proposed that that have two driveways. I've been in the real estate business for 23 years. I helped Bill and Danielle find their house. Searched it out and did the transaction... One of the major factors when they selected that house. It was advertised with a large, private, wooded back yard. The whole block had large lots and that's what they purchased. That's what we found three years ago and now less than three years later, they're going to give up their entire privacy of their back yard. What Bill was talking about with the house overlooking his house, it's not higher or lower or whatever. The point is he has a private living room, dining room, kitchen, back yard. Now we put a house in his back yard. Essentially that's what it is. It's right next to his back yard. And that house overlooks his formerly private yard and house. I can tell you from being in the real estate business for 23 years that this will significantly reduce the value of the Modell property, and I would propose to you that unless the developer is willing to look at a significant dollar amount for that reduction, I strongly suggest that this proposal be denied. Because the damages are significantly monetarily devaluing the Modell property. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions? Dave, it isn't two driveways. It will be one driveway with a cross access easement, correct? Hempel: One driveway access point from the cul-de-sac, which is currently there. Paul Modell: What about the driveway that's currently there? Are you talking about one driveway will come off of the other driveway? Hempel: That's correct. Paul Modell: So the house in the back will drive, they'll drive right next to the existing house? Hempel: It will be like a Y. As you turn off the cul-de-sac and go into the driveway, the existing driveway, there will be another driveway that Y's off to the left. Mancino: So you'll either be able to go straight into the existing house or go left. Paul Modell: I guess I wouldn't want to own either of those two properties... Mancino: Thank you. Paul Modell: Thank you. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Bob Swearengin: My name is Bob Swearengin. I live at 3530 Maplewood Circle. Just to the north of the proposed development. My neighbors have addressed the technical issues in regards to the development of the property. I guess I'd like to address a different point of view, and that's that a neighborhood isn't all technical specifications and setbacks and requirements. There are other factors involved in what makes up a neighborhood. I think we all purchased property in this neighborhood because of it's larger lots. Relatively low density. We've all seen Chanhassen develop. I grew up here. I remember when Chanhassen was a two lane highway and the farm store and Pauly's were the only thing on the street. I've seen what the City Council and the Planning Commission has done to improve Chanhassen. I've seen the development behind my property, which has made a drastic improvement from a field to a very nice development. I've seen my grandfather's farmhouse support close to 400 houses, which is now Longacres. Chanhassen has become very prestigious and a welcome place to live and I would like to see it stay that way. I'm not opposed to development. I don't think any of us are. I think what we are concerned about though is, it's not our neighbor anymore that is developing this house. He is no longer the one that owns that property. This is another person that is going to come in and simply profit because there's an extra piece of land available to subdivide. I would hope that the City Council could say there are many places we have in Chanhassen to develop, but let us retain the quality in this particular neighborhood and not maximize each parcel of land that's possible and retain what we have in our neighborhood. And so I would hope the Council would vote no for this proposal. Mancino: Thank you. Robert Crippa: My name's Robert Crippa. I live at 3501 and 3503 Maplewood Circle. I have a duplex at that address. I have a few concerns. The number one is the drainage problem. I am the one that is butted up against Greenbriar Avenue. Every time it rains, I see the water come up Greenbriar, through my back yard and... He didn't say anything about the back yard drainage off of Greenbriar Avenue. Off of the houses across the street on Greenbriar, which are higher than us. I have had city crews, when they've been coming in and repairing the streets, put tar to build up the road so that it won't wash down my yard. It comes down and it takes all the pine needles with it. Mancino: Robert, could you point to where your home is. Robert Crippa: I own this parcel right here. Mancino: Okay, thank you. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Robert Crippa: We get all the drainage from these lots. It comes right through here and comes right through our back yards. My other concern is, I have three young children. The people across the street have two young children. More cars coming down that road, we're right at the tip where everybody turns in. They come around that corner pretty fast sometimes and my concern is, if there's two more vehicles, that's two more chances. There's enough traffic on that road. The other concern is, hey. I have enough land. I can subdivide and put up another house too. Do you want to see another house there? You know we all own big lots. We could put, every one of us could put another house up. Is that what Chanhassen wants? That's my concern. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? May I have a motion to close the public hearing please. Faimakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public healing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Sharmin or Kate, basically what the applicant is asking for is legal. Al-Jaff: Correct. It meets ordinance requirements. Conrad: For a private drive, are there any special requirements when we allow a private drive? Al-Jaff: If you have more than one person, one household using the driveway, it has to be built up to a 7 ton standard. Other than that, all we need is a 30 foot easement where the driveway's going to go. Conrad: In terms of the invasion of privacy, we really don't have anything that protects that. I did see in the staff report that we may have to take down some trees. That's significant. Al-Jaff: There are some spruce trees. There's one specific spruce tree that will go. Conrad: But you didn't make an issue out of it so I'm assuming, and you're claiming it's not an issue. That's tough. I understand what the neighbors are saying. I think on the other hand, our role is to review this. I guess I've been looking for, my preference would be not to add a house there. Yet on the other hand it is legal. I don't know if I can give you anything that's solid tonight to be honest with you. I think it's maybe another commissioner might see something different than I but I think the staffs done it's job. I think what you'll find is that, what you've got is engineering looking at the issue and paying far more attention than you 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 might have had otherwise. I think engineering staff certainly is looking at the major issues. We certainly, one house shouldn't make a major difference. I'm always concerned that we don't delay water projects, especially if they impact the lake but as long as I know it's on our task for making sure that all the area runoff is pre-treated, that's important. I agree with the staff report. I just have a tough time dealing with this but I think the applicant has the right to do this and it does affect privacy and I can relate to that. The only thing I'd like to do with the staff report is make sure that we shift that driveway to the left as much as we can. I'd really like to get it. I really don't like allowing private drives on that property line. It just bothers me and maybe we should look at that sometime because that just really does seem like an invasion of privacy. I don't like it. It's there. The neighbors are stuck with it but maybe we, it won't help you out but maybe we can take a look at it for other people and see if there's something we can do. So again I'd like to shift it. I think the staff report's good. It's looking at the issues and if we make sure that the staff follows them up, it will protect it as much as I think we can in the city. Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: Well I think the staff did a great job of addressing all the issues that the neighbors brought up. I mean I think you did an excellent job. I think the drainage issue certainly has been addressed. As Dave said, they're looking into a detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plan so I think the city is certainly taking it seriously. It's not taking it lightly. I think it's basically an aesthetic problem and listen, I can agree with you. I mean, particularly the Modell's. They're going to be the ones, I think you're going to be the ones that are going to have the biggest impact because it's going to be right next to your property. The rest of the neighborhood, you know I can accept the cars going through and things like that but what Ladd said is right. I mean they have a right to, someone bought this property and intended to use it for something. It's in the guidelines. I don't have anything else to add. I just, I am concerned about the drainage issue but if they're comfortable not putting it in as a part of the condition but that it will be looked at, and I think it will be, I'd be in favor of it. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: Well I think staff dealt with the issues that they could. Drainage and the grading and such and it's unfortunate that there is that invasion of privacy with the private drives so close to the adjacent land and we've encountered this in the past. I can recall two or three occasions and I agree with Ladd that that's something that we should probably take a look at. I have a question, what is the subdivision potential of the other lots on Maplewood Circle here in regards to traffic? Future traffic congestion. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Aanenson: How the other lots could be subdivided in the future? A lot of it depends on the home placement of the lots. Whether or not you could get the common driveway. I think Ladd's right on the mark as far as the private driveway issue. You have to realize that staff struggled with this application for several months. When it first came in there was a lot of discussion as to how it could be, whether or not we even could support it but our hands were tied as we worked a lot closer with the City Attorney's office and based on the fact that he could do a private driveway, which is allowed by ordinance, it did allow it. Again this is the largest lot in the subdivision. It's well over an acre and as you look over time, that's what we're seeing subdividing. The pressures for taxes become onerous for some people and they have an acre and a half and an opportunity to subdivide. Certainly this is an issue we struggled with because it does change the character of the neighborhood, which we are concerned about. But there is an opportunity, the minimum lot size is 15,000 and people have enough to meet the standards of the ordinance. They have that opportunity. I think based on the discussion we're hearing tonight, that you would like the staff to revisit the private driveway issue and see what other opportunities to prevent this sort of situation. But I think based on the fact that because it is a large lot and we see that all the time, the pressures to subdivide are great based on financial reasons. So there may be other opportunities maybe just look at it just a broad brush approach to see. It depends on how the house is sitting on the lot, whether or not you can get other driveways. The neighbors have indicated that's not always the most desirable if you're going to split, to have a driveway come closer. But that doesn't mean people can't...common one down between two lots where they're set back further...but you raise a good point. Skubic: Yeah, I don't have the basis to deny this or vote against this application. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: Pretty much everything's been covered here. We've seen this issue several times when older developments come into play with someone who wishes to either finance development through subdivision or we get into the issue of buffering next to a higher density development next to a larger lot development. There's no solution for this outside of where our ordinances are, and we have to follow what is legal. The property owner's entitled to legally develop their property. Chanhassen does not have a large lot, single family resident zone. We have a minimum development that is required in this city as far as square footage goes on the lot. In fact there are a lot of forces both in the city and outside the city to reduce that even further and a lot of times neighborhoods come in where there's larger lots are in place and they talk about that they've lived here for a considerable length of time and having lived here for a considerable length of time myself, it's true. There is an...there's a feeling that is not in some of the smaller lot developments and I think it's unfortunate that there is no recourse for that but that's simply the way that it's set up. We have looked at that. There is 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 no support that I know of for large lot minimums, as a separate zone. And it is the only way that that issue would ever be tackled. We have I think a record out there, if we look at some of these older urban areas from Minneapolis to Edina to Minnetonka to Eden Prairie. Eventually all these lots get subdivided because eventually what happens is that somebody comes in to purchase the property and uses that subdivision capability to finance the purchase. And eventually areas are just maximized out for that development under what the minimums are. There's always exceptions to the rule but primarily if you look around, that's what happens. Mancino: Eventually. Farmakes: Eventually. And as planners we have to look at the long term development situation and we also have to deny or approve based on what the city's ordinances are and I don't see any way to not approve this. That's it. Mancino: Don. Mehl: I agree with what's been discussed here. They definitely have a right to develop it. One major concern I've got is that the street and circle does slope quite heavily down toward that end. Down toward that property and there's a potential for a lot of water to go down there. And the thing I'd be concerned about is the, well I support the driveway being shifted to the west. The driveway's certainly going to perhaps be raised some more so that the immediate grassy areas, so the water then may be channeled into a tighter, smaller area or something. I guess I'd be concerned that the drainage problem be worked out, not so it should work but it will work. If that can be done. You know so the city and the developer and the applicant can work that out. Mancino: Will work that out. Okay, thank you. I have a question about the private drive. You say a 30 foot private drive with 20 feet has to be paved because it's serving two houses. Oh, excuse me. Hempel: Sorry Madam Chair. The private driveway, the common portion of the private driveway would have to be 20 foot wide. The remaining portion of the driveway could be on up to I believe probably 10 feet. Mancino: Oh good. So as you go into the existing house, you're going straight and then when you bear off to the left, that left arm could be 10 feet so it doesn't have to take down as many trees. Doesn't have to, it can be even go over to the west even more. Great. Good. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Hempel: Madam Chair, that's a minimum of 10 feet. I guess it's typically up to a builder. Homeowner. Standard driveway width's probably 14 or 15. Mancino: 14 or 15 feet, okay. And that would still, one of the other questions that was asked was, it would still give enough room for snow removal, etc on each side of the driveway. Correct Dave? Hempel: With the driveway being shifted westerly and reduced in width, yes. Mancino: Okay. Are there trees that need to be added to this development, and could they be added in a place that would serve the new lot and the existing homeowner to have some privacy. Could we have the trees placed there so that we do have a little bit of buffering, a little bit of privacy provided? Al-Jaff: It's all going to depend on how many trees they take down after they finish development of the site. That's when we will. Mancino: Assess how many trees. At this point did you make a general calculation Sharmin? Al-Jaff: Correct. Yes we did. Mancino: Isn't it, was it 2 trees? Al-Jaff: The requirement is 55%. The tree removal and the house would take approximately 28%. So it leaves 52%. So the developer will be required to replace 3% difference. Mancino: And we could say in our conditions that any other trees that are taken out, that those be placed so that they can buffer or make it be the adjoining property? Al-Jaff: We can require that. Mancino: Okay. Al-Jaff: There is a drainage way in that area also so we need to make sure that it... Mancino: Okay. Okay, I understand. Anything that we can do there, I would like to see the applicant do so there could be some natural buffering. Aanenson: I think that's probably the best way to word it. Leave it so we can work with it. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Mancino: So we can work with that. This will continue happening in areas like this, correct. Sad. It's hard. Aanenson: You're going to see a lot more of it, yeah. Mancino: And it's legal and it's what we do and it is going to continue happening over the city and that's too bad. Do I have a motion? Conrad: Yeah, I'd make the motion Madam Chairman that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #96-7, according to the staff report dated May 1, 1996 with the 13 points listed in the staff report but with addition to point number 4 that the driveway be shifted to the west a minimum of 10 feet or that recommended by the staff. Moving the private drive to the west from the property line. My other, I want to add, it won't be a point but it will be a strongly worded statement to the applicant that the city's Planning Commission strongly recommends that the applicant work with the staff to minimize the visual impact to the property to the east through whatever means possible and I think they should do this just in terms of being a good neighbor and I would hope that staff could work with the applicant on this aspect of the recommendation. Mancino: And you did not want to make that a point in the conditions? Conrad: Well I just don't know how to do that. It's not legal. It's not, I just would like it there but I don't know that we can force it to happen. Mancino: Okay. Do you accept a friendly amendment to item 14 that says at this point, the applicant must plant two trees on a new lot to meet ordinance requirements and I would just like to add to say, to reword that to say the applicant must plant two trees on the new lot to meet city, to meet ordinance requirements and to add buffering to the lot on the east. To Lot 6. I didn't say that very well. Conrad: Boy, I couldn't figure that out. Aanenson: The way I understand it is, if we worked to place those strategically so they provide the best buffering. If we can't put it in that area because of the drainage swale, that we work to provide the best screenage for the neighboring property. Whether it's so you can't see into their living room or their back yard, whatever we work to strategically place that tree, is that what you're looking for? Mancino: Exactly. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 Aanenson: Provide the best screening. Mancino: So can you say that in 5 words or less? Aanenson: And place trees in a way to maximize screening to the properties to the east. Mancino: To the abutting property to the east. Conrad: Yeah, I would accept it. That's in addition to what point Madam Chair? Mancino: 14. Conrad: 14. And maybe staff could note that we have two 13's on the page. Mancino: Is there a second? Skubic: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Conrad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #96-7, Arundel Addition for two single family lots as shown on the plans dated April 3, 1996, prepared by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. The landscaping plan shall include trees to be planted. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the trees showing grading limits prior to grading. 2. The proposed development of 0.63 developable acres shall be responsible for water quality and quantity connection charge of $1,751.00. These fees are payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat. Credits may be applied to this fee for dedication of additional drainage easements for ponding needs on Lot 2, Block 1. 3. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the city engineer. 4. The application will be responsible for all street restoration and storm sewer modifications that result in providing the driveway to Lot 2. The applicant shall escrow 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 with the city $2,500.00 in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee street restoration and storm sewer maintenance. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat a drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lots 1 and 2 and along the southerly 20 feet of Lot 2. The driveway shall be shifted westerly as far as possible per the staffs approval. 5. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. 6. Construction of the sewer and water system for Lot 2 shall adhere to plumbing code Section 4715.243. Lot 2 will require an ejector system to serve the house with sanitary sewer. 7. An emergency overflow swale shall be constructed adjacent to the driveway of Lot 2 to maintain drainage from Maplewood Circle. 8. Lot 2 shall be subject to a hook-up fee in accordance with city codes. The connection fee will be waived assuming the applicant extends sewer and water from Maplewood Circle to the property line. 9. Cross access or driveway easement and maintenance agreement shall be prepared and recorded with the final plat to guarantee ingress and egress through Lot 1. 10. The applicant shall work with city staff in negotiating an additional drainage easement on Lot 2 for future storm water pond. 11. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Comply with Chanhassen Dire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29-1992 Premise identification (copy enclosed). 12. Park and Recreation conditions: a. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land, in accordance with City Code. 13. The existing shed on proposed Lot 2 shall be removed prior to the recording of the plat. A demolition permit will be required. 14. The applicant must plant two trees on the new lot to meet ordinance requirements, and place the trees in a way to maximize screening to the properties to the east. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 15. The applicant must attempt to locate home in between the 30" ash and silver maple. Tree preservation fencing must be installed prior to grading. Fencing must be installed at the grading perimeters. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Mehl seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 17, 1996 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: There were light items on as far as planning issues. Just to update you. Southwest Metro is working on a transit hub located on Highway 5 between Prairie Center Drive and what will be the new alignment of Technology Drive. They did present those plans to the City Council. Since we are one of the partners, along with Eden Prairie and Chaska in Southwest Metro, Sharmin is active in working on, that's one of the areas that we'll be looking at putting some housing. We're working with Carver County HRA to do a housing project there so it'd be the transit hub, some commercial and some houses so we're working on the design of that. Just wanted to let you know that even though it's in Eden Prairie, that we're pursuing some hopefully some creative designs on that piece of property to meet some of our housing goals. Then the other thing, there was a planning issue on that Council meeting was the wetland alteration permit and then I have quite a few ongoing items I'd like to update you on. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: The Masse request, which was the property off of Lyman and Galpin which was requesting for the multi-family project, has been withdrawn based on the recommendation from the Planning Commission. So it will not go to the Council. In that same vein, Mr. Hoben has withdrawn his application on his subdivision too. Mancino: On Melody Hill? Aanenson: Correct. Yes, he withdrew the application. Other ongoing items. Met Council held a meeting out here regarding the growth options. There's three different options. I'll be providing a report to the Council and also I'll include that to you. There were three different options in that same vein. The builders commissioned their own study to present, kind of lobbying their position on that. Obviously one of the positions is to not extend the MUSA. What that does is, what they're trying to do is create more infill and when you can see the pressures of some of that is to provide, where we do have a lot of large lots, is to provide 28 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 opportunities to maybe subdivide some of the lots so you can see what the impact of that would be based on what our discussion on this last issue. Instead of going further out, where the infrastructure's already in place, more intense development... Southwest Coalition, which this community's a part of has been meeting and putting together some position papers. Again I'll be sharing that with you and with the City Council in your upcoming meetings. Also update on the auto sales. The applicant is no longer pursuing that piece of property. That's the good news. Flip side of that is, there's five other sites that they're still pursuing. Most of them still along Highway 5 so we'll keep you updated on that. Then the final thing I wanted to let you know is the Governor did sign the new wetland regulations...the Board of Soil and Water Management will be implementing the new regulations on that so we're kind of in this interim stage. Mancino: What is that? Aanenson: What it does is allow for some filling of a larger amount of wetland being filled without having to get a wetland permit. Alteration permit. What's in place right now is our city ordinance are still more restrictive than the state law so we have to make those changes but we want to make sure, we're going to a training session here to find out what the new laws, and find out what we want to change because we've always been a little bit different as how we apply those. We don't want to go carte blanche, exactly what the State says. We want to understand how those two relate to our ordinances before we make any changes so you will be seeing some amendments to our city wetland regulation permit in the future. It probably won't be for another month or so but there are new laws that are in place right now and again, we'll be keeping you informed of how that relates to our's. Mancino: Is there still the 2:1 mitigation? Aanenson: No. There's some flexibility in that now where you get credit for doing the buffer strips, which again we were kind of out ahead so they will be getting some credit for that for mitigation by buffer strips and those sort of things so, again we'll be showing you how that relates to our storm water plan. Excuse me, our wetland permitting. What kind of changes we may or may not want to make and how it relates to what we're trying to do out here. Conrad: Is that a subject that will go to the Environmental Committee? Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, I think that's something we would want them to look at and get some input on, sure. And then ultimately the Council makes the decision on that so. That's all I had. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996 The public portion of the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. At this point the Planning Commission had an open discussion regarding New Urbanism. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 30 LOTUS REALTY SERVICES MAY 15 WORK SESSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL PREFACE: Briefly, our presentation is intended to be in the context of discussing how the plans for the Villages on the Ponds provide opportunities to meet certain needs and wants of our community. We intend to provide some backgrounding in several areas, all with the goal of exploring how this PUD provides these opportunities and why we have chosen the neotraditional approach as to tool to facilitate the process. OUTLINE: Categories of discussion will include: 1. Comparison of Villages on the Ponds with other neotraditional communities as to scope and use. 2. Discussion of how the neotraditional approach for this site affords exciting yet pragmatic opportunities in three key areas: . social . economic . environment. Time will be spent on subcategories including sustaining and enhancing the environment, transportation network(cars, busses, pedestrian);the role of Main Street and other design elements; features that define a sense of place/community;blending pedestrian friendliness with automotive accessibility;the function of design in the efficient yet aesthetic mixed use of land (church, school, commerce and homes); and maximizing the tax base. The presentation/discussion will be coordinated by Lotus Realty and the Villages on the Ponds development team, assisted by one or two additional presenters of 5 to 10 minutes duration. 551 WEST 78TH STREET■P.O.BOX 235■CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317■(612)934-4538■ FAX(612)934-5472