The URL can be used to link to this page

09-7-94 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1994, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE 5:30 to 7:15 p.m. Sign Ordinance Work Session - PLEASE BRING YOUR COPY CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS 1. Rezone 37.92 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat to subdivide 37.92 acres into 50 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit located at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and proposed Lake Lucy Road extension, 6730 Galpin Boulevard, Ed and Mary Ryan, Shamrock Ridge. 2. Rezoning of 25.85 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat to subdivide 25.85 acres into 21 single family lots and 3 outlots located in the SW 1/a of Section 3, T 116, R 23, north of Hwy. 5 and east of Hwy. 41, Brenden Pond, Gestach and Paulson Construction. NEW BUSINESS 3. Preliminary plat of 9.7 acres into 50 lot single family twin homes and site plan review for 25 structures located on property zoned PUD and located west of Powers Boulevard,just south of Lake Susan Hills Drive, Powers Place, Jasper Development Corporation. 4. *Item Deleted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. *Item Deleted 4. Amendment to the City Code relating to the control and prevention of dutch elm and other arboreal diseases within the city. C ITY O FClIANHASSEN PC DATE: August 17, 1994 September 7, 1994 y F CC DATE: September 26, 1994 CASE # 94-7 SUB, 94-3 REZ, 94-3 WAP • - . - a • STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 37.92 acres of property from Rural Residential, RR, to Single Family Residential, RSF, preliminary plat approval to subdivide 37.92 acres into 48 single-family lots, 1 outlot and 5.4 acres of right-of-way, and a wetland �-- alteration permit to fill and dredge wetlands located on site. Q LOCATION: West side of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) at the intersection of Lake V Lucy Road - a portion of the SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 116 North, Range 23 West. APPLICANT: Ed and Mary Ryan Charles W. Plowe Consulting Engineer Q.. 6730 Galpin Boulevard 9180 Lexington Avenue NE Q Excelsior, MN 55331 Circle Pines, MN 55014 (612) 943-1410 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential ACREAGE: 37.92 Acres DENSITY: gross: 1.37 units per acre net: 1.97 1.74 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RR, single-family homes S - RR, single-family home E - RR, Galpin Blvd. and single-family homes QW - RR, vacant QWATER AND SEWER: Not available. Pending Lake Lucy Road extension approval. w PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is partially cultivated for hay. There are severe slopes I... throughout the site with elevation changes from 1046 feet to 980 feet, a natural wetland in the southwest corner of the development and two ag/urban wetlands along the eastern edge of the V) development. The majority of the site is open field, however, there are concentrations of trees to the north and east of the natural wetland, within the wetland, along the west and north boundary of the site, and around the existing homestead. The Lake Lucy Road extension is proposed through the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range - 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) 3 NE/SN 3TASNA 11rXaNTSPARK D _ ! M Y1M•.R� �•. A J. LM[ �� .r.� '. N� vI/.n1■ ��i7i�. VVialilln.....”.17-11/41.,iljt,,t4 .�� ne MI��S� �� e:nes 4 . f1� �. 1111....r O'«: ,r 1li �j�� IIE470P111 C,��n�-MOM b f,.Agr•ate Iffirag, .7 j t � w Illininiquit . .- _ .., •., - cell'irou 9 ..„1,1f P .`AN Fa . =''QIL'hl�Ir�yy� �.LLI:Sa�1�ii�1 :_ F "'Ikik ��Ate. 1,77/'" lrimi-pdati,.1 : 1.• f .4-.: .1:Iir, ;- ' Li I Z:i::::0::0.4.11 ' 411, 41141 iz„;. figs II ' X E --1,r! i / .1 .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.! ill Y� R(6/ONALi ilirt PARRfr __ :Kr �Z Ma �� A�► inn AAAA,j'M `Milli . • LAKE LUC r /H!�1'7 . ii.diar rAii, . oai ___ SAME ,h. s. fw e tip, • Aj ;II; `R0., .V[ LAKE ANN "4-47V Pf . MEA DOW = ` .1i �] J " -, Mil I b l ARE ANN I I �, ' PA�iK S• I 11111 --f4P— illi TA 11 . . A, • �_ 1 , rillI.' Z__ , Y4; �, Mrrak % I I 1 •' PA p i vili 11541 ra .°I kfar4 0,"j 'I 1 I I I 1'-10 AO*------'------'g 1 T� Mr11111 111 <I it — --- _ am�� got ;�,e�,. � e_. 6 i • i .� tin.�,� / 2 ."1.11d aV n / - � 4� MteN/ � . ''410. ��ma (CR le) I / ��U�� LYMAH ► �cu. /31.9.h Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting the rezoning of 37.92 acres of property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat approval to subdivide 37.92 acres into 50 48 single-family lots, 1 outlot and 641- 5.4 acres of right-of-way, and a wetland alteration permit to dredge and fill wetlands located on site. Rezoning of the property to RSF is consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan designation of the property as Residential - Low Density. The Ryans recently contacted the city about the prospect of developing their property when the City Council was determining the location of Lake Lucy Road. They indicated to staff that they have no immediate plan to develop but wanted to ensure that the location of Lake Lucy Road through their property works the best for development of their property. Because the city does not have a conceptual approval process for a subdivision, they decided to gain preliminary plat approval from the city. Initially since beginning the process, the applicant has revised their intentions, stating that they will develop the property in the immediate future. This property has some significant issues involved in its development including the Lake Lucy Road extension alignment, severe slopes, grading and drainage concerns, wetlands, tree preservation, and the interrelationship of this plat with the future development of surrounding lands. Staff believes that the subdivision, as proposed, is inconsistent with the existing land form. The applicant's proposed stormwater ponding system is inadequate and must be revised. The steep slopes on the western half of the development make the development of this area problematic at best based on the development proposal due to the severe slopes. From a land use and site design standpoint, this portion of the property would be better served from the north, eliminating the need for excessive grading of the site. The proposed alignment for Lake Lucy Road does not meet the city's preferred alignment adjacent to the wetland located in the southwest corner of the site. Meanwhile, Gestach and Paulson have proposed a subdivision to the west of the Ryans. Mancinos, who own the property to the north, are also concerned about the impacts of these developments and how their property can be best accessed. Staff asked all these property owners to meet to try and resolve how each development is best designed. Access between and through each parcel is a critical issue and it is the city's job to ensure that they subdivisions do not land lock other parcels. In addition, access needs to be provided in a location that takes into consideration the design of natural features. This has been a very difficult process for staff. We have spent numerous hours exploring design options. All three affected parcels have been willing to work with the city. Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 3 The Lake Lucy Road alignment is such a significant issue and impacts this and adjoining developments to such an extent, that its alignment must be resolved. The city's preferred alignment for Lake Lucy Road is the southern alignment. Not only does this alignment provide a community view of the open space/wetland, but it also provides better access to the required stormwater ponding areas that will be provided adjacent to the wetland, eliminates front facing lots on Lake Lucy Road in Shamrock Ridge and the Brenden Pond development to the west, and reduces the amount of filling adjacent to the wetland by 13 feet (Gwendolen Court elevation 1000 vs. Lake Lucy Road southern alignment station 13+75 elevation 987.93). This alignment provides the applicant with two alternatives for the development of the western third of the project. Alternate 1 would provide two cul-de-sacs running north from Lake Lucy Road. While permitting the development to be completed on its own time, it does not minimize the grading of the western part of the development. However, it does eliminate any lots fronting directly onto the collector road. Alternate 2 would outlot the western third of the development north of the Lake Lucy Road alignment until access could be provided from the property to the north. This alternative minimizes grading, protects trees, and provides spectacular home sites at the top of the hill. However, the development time frame for this portion of the property is indefinite and dependent on the development of the property to the north. . • .. .. . Y. _.. - _. • ... .. . .• . - oTC'Jo1ved. Staff is recommending numerous revisions for the subdivision that will make the development palatable, if not optimal, based on the applicant's proposal. While staff still believes that the southern alignment for Lake Lucy Road is a better alignment for the community, should the Planning Commission approve the applicant's proposal, we have developed some revisions that staff could live with if the applicant agrees to meet all the conditions of approval. The approximate 600 feet of open space north of the proposed alignment does offer the city some benefit from the northern alignment of Lake Lucy Road. Staff has discussed the following recommendations with the applicant's engineer, Chuck Plowe, on Tuesday, August 30, 1994. The revised plans based on these recommendations are attached to this report. Following are the conditions that could make the applicant's proposal acceptable: Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 4 1. Extend Jennifer Way and utilities to the north property line (James Court is only the cul-de-sac). 2. Provide a private drive easement for Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 2. (If such an access is not feasible for Lot 14, Block 2, then Lot 14 should be eliminated and Lots 12 and 13 made larger.) 3. Provide a 3 to 1 slope on the north side of the Lake Riley Road right-of-way in the western third of the project. May require the realignment of the right-of-way 20 feet to the south. 4. Align the Lake Lucy Road and begin curve to the southwest to match the alignment in Brenden Pond to the west. 5. Provide 60 foot right-of-way for Mary Bay and Gwendolen Court. 6. Provide a 4 to 1 slope to access the stormwater pond between Mary Bay and Gwendolen Court. 7. Combine the drainage discharge pipe for Mary Bay and Gwendolen Courts into one discharge pipe. 9. Delete ponding area on Lots 33 and 34, Block 1 and replace with a berm. 10. Look at the grading for Lots 4 through 8, Block 2 to promote stormwater drainage from the front to the rear, rather than concentrating stormwater flows to the rear of Lot 4. 11. Verify the proper sizing of the stormwater ponds on site based on the surface water management plan. BACKGROUND This property is currently being used as a farmstead by the applicant. Their home is located in the southeastern portion of the property with the remainder being farmed. Staff has met individually with the applicant's consulting engineer and surveyor to express our concerns about the initial proposed alignment of Lake Lucy Road which was proposed to bisect the site and connect with the property to the west at the northwest corner of the property. At that time, staff advised the engineer that the preferred alignment of Lake Lucy Road was at the bottom of the slope adjacent to the natural wetland. Staff met on August 2, 1994 with the Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 5 applicant and the abutting property owners in order to determine the appropriate locations for street connections and to discuss the issues involved in this development. Of special concern is the Lake Lucy Road extension location and providing convenient and feasible street access to the property to the north. Since these meetings, the applicant has revised the plat by moving the Lake Lucy Road extension sixty feet south of the northwest corner of the property. On August 17, 1994, the Planning Commission tabled the proposed development in order to permit the applicant to revise the plans consistent with staff recommendations. At that time, the Planning Commission appeared to be of a consensus that the Lake Lucy Road alignment be revised to the south. While meeting some of the conditions of the original report, the applicant continues to provide a northerly alignment for Lake Lucy Road. REZONLNG The property is designated as Residential - Low Density (net density range 1.2 - 4.0 units/ac.). The proposed rezoning of the property to Single Family Residential is consistent with this land use designation. Staff supports the requested rezoning. WETLANDS According to the wetland delineation performed by Arlig Environmental, Inc., three wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows: Basin 1 is the large wetland located on the western boundary of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the west; approximately 4.7 acres of wetland is on-site. The wetland is classified as a natural wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance. Basin 2 is located along the eastern edge of the property. The wetland is approximately 0.8 acre in size. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. It appears that this basin will be eliminated and converted into a stormwater treatment pond as a result of the proposed development and the extension of Lake Lucy Road. As a result, the area filled will require mitigation. The Army Corps of Engineers will require mitigation for fill and excavation at a ratio of 1:1. However, in accordance to state and local regulations, a ratio of 2:1 is required. Basin 3 is located in the southeastern corner of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the south; approximately 0.4 acre of wetland is on-site. This wetland is part of a wetland complex and it drains south into Basin 1. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 6 Regulations A replacement plan will be required as part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance (CWO) requirements. The City administers the WCA. In addition to the replacement plan requirements, staff would like the following information as part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils. The Army Corps of Engineers will also require a permit application for the alteration of wetlands. They should be contacted for their requirements. The WCA and the CWO require a wetland replacement ratio of 2:1 for wetlands filled. The wetland replacement plan should be designed to meet the existing functions and values that have been removed as a result of filling in other wetlands. It is possible to replace the wetlands at a ratio of 1:1 in upland and a ratio of 1:1 as wetland restoration. The City is going to start a wetland bank in the near future by restoring wetlands that have been drained. It may be possible to purchase banking points as part of the mitigation for this site. Staff thinks that wetland replacement should occur in the large wetland to the west rather than creating a small wetland adjacent to a large stormwater pond. The WCA was written to replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible or prudent. Alternatives for avoiding wetland impacts should be considered as part of the wetland alteration permit process. In addition, to the requirements of the WCA, the CWO 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 is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. The proposed grading plan will have to show the buffer strip and the appropriate house setbacks. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 7 improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-developed and post-developed conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre-developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2.5-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre-developed and post-developed conditions. Water Quality The SWMP has established a user fee for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. If the applicant eposes-to constructs the water quality basins, these fees will be waived and credit given for any oversizing. Water Quantity The SWMP has established a user fee an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $63,360 assuming 32 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with the SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. The exact fees will be determined after final review and approval of the construction plans and specifications and Lake Lucy Road assessment methodology if applicable. DRAINAGE The development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed. The SWMP should be reviewed by the applicant's engineer and the site designed in accordance with the SWMP Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 8 design to the extent feasibly possible. All runoff shall be pretreated before discharge to any of the existing wetlands. Similar to Brenden Pond, Lake Lucy Road will intersect this parcel. The applicant's plans have included a segment of Lake Lucy Road; however, it does not correspond to the City's feasibility study. The Lake Lucy Road alignment is shifted northerly to facilitate two cul-de-sacs on the south side of Lake Lucy Road adjacent to wetlands. A storm water retention pond to pretreat runoff from the cul-de-sacs and part of Lake Lucy Road is proposed adjacent to the wetland. Another storm water treatment pond is proposed adjacent to Galpin Boulevard lying both north and south of Lake Lucy Road. Staff has recommended to the applicant's engineer to delete the southerly pond and extend storm sewer to the existing culvert underneath Galpin Boulevard. Depending on the applicant's timing, they may petition the City, similar to the Brenden Ponds developer, for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the parcel. This would be a 429 public improvement project whereby the drainage, utility and street improvements would be partially assessed back to the benefitting property owners. This alignment is also a State-Aid route where State-Aid funding may play a role to assist in the funding on the project. Unfortunately, state aid funds have been encumbered for the next three years. Another option would be for the applicant to construct the entire segment of Lake Lucy Road and be given credit for oversizing any utility lines and credit for the trail system along Lake Lucy Road. According to the City's SWMP, three storm water pretreatment ponds (Walker ponds) are proposed on the site. One is located just east of Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Boulevard. Another one is The etl er. two a-e located just northerly of the wetland areas. The applicant has proposed constructing two of the three ponding areas. The SWMP also proposes a third water quality basin at the end of the ravine in the southwest corner of this development and extends westerly into Brenden Pond. It may be feasible to consider combining the proposed pond between Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay with the proposed SWMP pond in the southwest corner and Brenden Pond. This area then could be utilized as a mitigation area. The applicant may be given credit for the oversizing of the storm water treatment ponds and any trunk storm sewer facilities they install in conjunction with the overall development. This will be further reviewed upon the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. Staff encourages the applicant's engineer to review the City's SWMP plan for appropriate sizing of the ponding areas and trunk storm sewers. The storm ponds should be designed with access in mind. A 4:1 side slope is required along/over the storm pipe which discharges into the pond. The pond should be designed and constructed with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL) for the first one foot (depth) of water and the remaining at 3:1. Another alternative would be to design the pond with 4:1 slopes overall. Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 9 GRADING The site contains very steep slopes in the northwesterly portion of the site as well as a small ravine area. The slopes along the northerly portion are in the range of 20% to 30%. With these types of slopes it is very difficult to prepare a site for streets and house pads without significant grading. Staff has reviewed the plan and has prepared a few options with what we believe would be a more feasible approach to developing the steeper part of the site (westerly 1/3). We believe if the parcel to the north (Mancino) was to develop prior to this development we would require that a street be extended to the northerly line of this plat for a future cul-de-sac to extend lots off of this high ridge. This would make use of the existing topographic features of the property without substantially altering the grades. This would also allow for Lake Lucy Road to be extended along the southerly portion of the site to maintain a sufficient buffer and setback below the proposed homes along the northerly portion of the development. It would also allow for sufficient wetland mitigation and storm water treatment ponds adjacent to the wetland. One of the drawbacks with regards to this approach would be the lack of benefit that this development would receive from Lake Lucy Road. It is the City's intent to partially assess the benefitting properties for the construction of Lake Lucy Road; however, in this segment where no direct benefit is received the City would have difficulty assessing a portion of Lake Lucy Road. However, the City may lees have alternative financing methods such as State Aid to assist in developing the roadway system. Unfortunately, these funds are encumbered for the next three years. The grading plan as proposed with the Lake Lucy roadway alignment to the north has very steep backslopes (2.5:1) .. . .. . - . - : - . -. . -. The City's typical street section requires a boulevard area and then 3:1 slopes. In addition, this alignment will not match with the development to the west (Brenden Pond). Staff has been working with the applicant's engineer in realigning Lake Lucy Road to match to the west and provide appropriate boulevards and backslopes. This appears achievable by slightly curving Lake Lucy Road southwesterly and shifting the street south by approximately 20 feet. The southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road is still preferred by staff. The . . . ' ' - - -. - • : .. .. . . - . . .. _ .. . . The proposed 8-foot wide bike trail along the north side of the road may be realigned to assist in improving the side slopes as well. The use of retaining walls may also be employed to lessen the grading impacts; however, if this is done as a part of the City project it will increase costs significantly for the construction of these retaining walls and limit future street widening if so desired. The applicant is also proposing three lots to access off of Lake Lucy Road immediately across from Mary Bay Court. Staff believes that Lot 14 40 is an unbuildable lot due to the steepness of the grades and proximity of Lake Lucy Road. Lots 12 S and 13 4 may be serviced off a private driveway off of James Court which would modify the house design from a tuck-under which is not desirable to a walkout which is more valuable. Staff is also recommending extending a street stub north towards the Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 10 Mancino's from James Court. The street could terminate at a point short of the tree line which would provide access to the last lot (9) and future extension to Mancino's if desired. The applicant is proposing water quality ponds adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. Galpin Boulevard is classified as a local collector street and will need additional right-of-way dedicated with this plat. According to Carver County, a minimum corridor of 100 feet should be reserved for future upgrading to a four-lane street. The-ecore, itis for The applicant is to dedicating an additional 17 feet of right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard to fulfill the County's requirement. - •.. . -, .• - . - . . . • _ . _ .. . • ! _ . : .. . • __ - .. •. • .. . .. Y.. • , '• - .: -::. : !f 3; . 111-• - - - . . . - .. s- _ . : 3-z .:- 3:- _ -• _.- - - _ a s : • . - - .- -- - . - . - .. Y.• . • • - - - - • . . The backyard drainage from Lots 19 through 30, Block 1 will be directed to a wetland located in the southeast corner of the site. Staff recommends that an interim sediment pond be constructed prior to runoff entering the wetland. The sediment pond may be removed once the lots are revegetated. Staff is concerned about the grading behind Lots 4 through 8, Block 2. The proposed grade directs runoff extremely close to the house pad on Lot 4, Block 2. Staff has recommended to the applicant's engineer that this needs to be revised to promote a rear yard to front yard drainage pattern. UTILITIES As part of the City's Lake Lucy Road extension, the utilities will be brought to the intersection of proposed Pond View Court and Lake Lucy Road approximately 400 feet west of this development. Utilities are proposed to be extended along Lake Lucy Road. However, since there will be a gap between the plats, it will be necessary for the City and/or developer to extend Lake Lucy Road to service this development. Without that project, this development is premature. Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 11 • - ' - . - . ... - - . - = - - • - - . - - -- .- . Staff has reviewed the access and utility service needs to the Mancino parcel and believes it is prudent, at this time, to require extension of utilities and street access north along James Court (through Lot 9, Block 2) to potentially serve a portion of Mancino's. The existing home on Lot 14 34, Block 3 (Ryan's) is currently on a septic and well system. The house should be connected to the new sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes operational. The well may be utilized as long as it is on the same lot and functioning properly. Once the well fails or the property owner sells, the property shall be required to connect to city water per city ordinance. EROSION CONTROL The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be required around all the natural wetlands being preserved. The steep slopes may also require some form of terraced erosion control fencing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process. STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Another access will also be extended from the west if the City continues with the extension of Lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road may be built under the City's improvement project program if so petitioned by the applicant and authorized by the City Council. Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use Plan. It is also part of the City's Municipal State-Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision ordinance, direct driveway access onto a collector street should be restricted or controlled whenever feasible. Staff believes that Lot 14 4$, Block 2 located north of Lake Lucy Road, is not a buildable lot; however, Lots 12 8- and 13 94, Block 2 should have a driveway access from James Court which would eliminate any driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff believes this is a feasible alternative to having direct access onto Lake Lucy Road and should be required as a condition of approval. The alignment of Lake Lucy Road west of this development has not been finalized. The City has prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard. There are two other parcels of land that are directly impacted by the Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 12 future alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The first parcel is located just west of this development and proceeding ahead with a preliminary plat (Gestach parcel - Brenden Ponds). The other parcel (Mancino) is located to the north of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property owners several options for access to the Mancino parcel from the Brenden Pond development and this development. Brenden Pond will be providing the Mancino parcel access to the westerly portion via private driveway. Staff has also met with the Ryans to discuss two potential alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact this development. There is no clear-cut alignment of Lake Lucy Road that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation. The preliminary plat of Shamrock Ridge has utilized a northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and finds numerous problems from a design standpoint which will have to be resolved, which may or may not poly reduce the number of lots. The applicant's engineer will be supplying staff with a revised plat that addresses most of these problems. Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through this parcel which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very steep slopes. However, this alignment works well with the existing terrain and minimizes impacts to the wetlands. The resulting impact from the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road requires short, steep cul-de-sacs as well as tuck-under type homes to the north of Lake Lucy Road unless access is from the north (Mancinos). Staff . . . . . _ .. . . . - _ . . - _ _ - . . _ . - - • - .•• - = - ': :, • - - : . still believes that the southerly alignment is the preferred alignment for Lake Lucy Road. The proposed plan at this time still needs some minor alignment changes in order to achieve 3:1 backslopes along Lake Lucy Road and match the touchdown point on Brenden Pond (Gestach Paulson). The applicant's engineer and City staff believe this can be accomplished if the northerly alignment is acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 80-foot wide right-of-way for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the development. The plans also propose a 60-foot wide right-of- way on all the streets except for Mary Bay and Gwendolen Court, and construction of the City's standard roadway section for the interior streets. The right-of-way for Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay shall be widened to 60 feet vs. 50 feet unless the applicant can demonstrate some benefits to the City. Street grades range from 0.5% to 7% which is the City's maximum grade allowed. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as part of the final plat submittal. S.heifid Access to the Mancino parcel shall be provided by extending Jennifer Way to the north considered of James Court through Lot 9, Block 2, - - - • -- •• • . . and conditions stipulated in the development contract that this street may be extended in the future. Staff also recommends that it •'-e roa i -- - - - - - •. - : •, the Meet north/south portion of James Court name should be changed to Jennifer Way. --::• - . . . - - : _: _ • : . _ _ Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 13 • . .. . . . • ::•. - - - . . .. • . • ... - Y. .. _. . . . . • • - _ - . e -- - . - --- - - . - •a • • • - - - - - - - • e Option A Cons Y. • • • • • • Y- - • - • Option R Pros (See Att.,ch.ment +N1 4ption-B—Cons - ... . . - - - - .. r. .. • Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 14 . .. .. - .. - • . . Y. . . . . .. .: _ . Option—C---Cons : : •:- _. - . . _ - - .. . . . . . • ' . • __ Conclusion Staff has reviewed this plat submittal and still believes that the southerly alignment (Lake Lucy Road) should be followed. However, as a compromise, staff would be open to a northerly Lake Lucy Road alignment if the applicant can provide for 3:1 side slopes outside the right-of-way and revise Lake Lucy Road to match with the intersection proposed in Brenden Pond. In addition, the plat should be revised to extend Jennifer Way to the north through Lot 9, Block 2 to provide access to the Mancino parcel. These -- •- • • - - .- . - - ' -. • • • • .- - -- • - . This leaves development flexibility to the Mancino parcel and still allows both parcels (Brenden Pond and Ryan) to develop. Staff believes it is an appropriate way to develop the westerly one-third of the Ryan development by accessing from Mancinos. Due to steep grades, we believe that this site should be accessed from the north to retain its topographic features. If the Mancino parcel was the first to be developed, we would recommend that the Mancinos provide a street access to the south for development of this area due to the steep grades. Similarly, staff has required the Ryans to provide access to the Carlson parcel (south of Jennifer Way) due to the isolated parcel of land (surrounded by wetland). We feel that it is in the best interest of the City and property owners to make a development proposal which utilizes the existing topography. in LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION A landscape buffer shall be required along the length of County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard, and along both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, section 18-61 (a) (5). This buffer landscaping shall be developed as part of the preliminary and final plat submittal for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required. A woodland management plan must also be prepared as part of the platting process. In addition, a landscape plan including the landscape buffer and forestation and replacement planting must be prepared and approved by the city. The choice of species in the preliminary landscaping plan are appropriate and acceptable, but small monocultures of trees have been created by grouping the similar species. Mixing a variety of species allows for Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 15 diversity within your urban forest thereby increasing the overall health of it and reducing the chances of widespread outbreaks of disease. Symmetry along boulevards need not be lost by using diversity. Aesthetic avenues can be attained without the disadvantages associated with monocultures. Choosing trees of different species that will attain similar heights or have similar branching characteristics is an excellent alternative. The landscaping plan requires an additional 42 trees based on staff's analysis of the tree preservation, forestation, and replacement requirements for a total of 284 trees. Staff recommends that the additional 42 trees be incorporated in the landscaping plan as follows: 1. Nine trees staggered for a windbreak along the western property lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Windbreak trees shall include spruce (Black Hills, Norway, White). 2. Five trees grouped near the corners of Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 1; 10 trees grouped along the rear lot lines of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, Block 1; and 18 trees in groupings along the rear lot lines of Lots 1 through 11, Block 2. Rear yard tree selection shall be River Birch, Ohio Buckeye, Catalpa, Silver Queen Maple, White or Bur Oak, Hawthorne, Aspen, Arborvitae, and Balsam or White Fir. In addition, the following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of the final plat: a 30 foot easement along the northern boundary of the site; a thirty foot easement along the western lot lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; the northern 50 feet of the eastern 30 feet of Lot 4, Block 1; the southern 50 feet of the eastern 30 feet of Lot 5, Block 1; the southern 25 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 6, Block 1; the northern 75 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 7, Block 1; the eastern 30 feet of Lots 9 and 10, Block 1; the western 30 feet of Lots 11, 12, and 13, Block 1; the eastern 30 feet of Lots 2 through 7, Block 3; and the western 30 feet of Lots 8 through 11, Block 3. To provide slope stabilization north of Lake Lucy Road west of Lot 14, Block 2, Sumac shall be planted 7 feet on center. Such plantings shall be staggered to provide better stabilization and aesthetic appeal. Additionally, this areas must be mulched and seeded after grading. As proposed, there is very little tree preservation being done except for within the wetland area. Staff does not concur with the applicant's designation of trees to be saved. By viewing the landscaping plan and the grading plan, it is obvious that some of the trees in Lots 2, 3, 8, and 9, Block 1, Lots 10 and 11, Block 2, and Lots 6, 7, 9, and 13, Block 3 Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 16 will not be "saved." - • • - . .. ' .. ' . - - . - - - . . - . . _ .. .. _ • -- - - . . . , .. . - . . . - .. . . . . _ _ . the tree plan, Staff estimates that approximately one-third of the existing tree canopy is being preserved. In reviewing the applicant's tree preservation plans and baseline canopy coverage calculations, staff believes that the calculations are in error. In reviewing the tree plan, staff estimates that there is a 13 percent baseline canopy coverage (4.25 acres or 185,346 square feet in 32.63 acres of net developable land). Tree canopy within a designated wetland is excluded from calculation. The required post development canopy coverage is 25 percent or a total of 8.16 acres of tree canopy. To meet the minimum canopy coverage requirements, the developer would need to develop a forestation plan for 3.91 acres (8.16 - 4.25) which would require the planting of 156 trees (3.91 x 43,560 / 1,089). In addition, because the developer is removing canopy coverage that is required to meet their minimum canopy coverage, they must replace the removed canopy area at a rate of 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed. Since the applicant did not provide these calculations, staff has estimated that the removed canopy coverage area is approximately 116,546 square feet. The replacement planting is then calculated at 139,855 square feet (116,564 x 1.2). The number of trees required for replacement planting is calculated at 128 trees (139,855/1089). The total tree planting requirement as part of the development's forestation and tree replacement plantings is 284 trees. PARKS AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission met on July 26, 1994 to review this proposal. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council require the following conditions of approval in regard to park and trails for the Shamrock Ridge plat: 1. Full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance. 2. An 8 ft. bituminous trail be constructed parallel to Lake Lucy Road. This construction to be incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road Extension Project. The developer shall be reimbursed for the cost of said trail from the city's trail fund. 3. Sufficient county road right-of-way/easements be maintained along County Road 117 (Galpin Boulevard) to accommodate possible future trail construction. Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 17 COMPLIANCE TABLE Block Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Frontage (ft.) Depth (Ft.) 1 1 18,946 140 145 2 22,265 55.64* 185 3 32,268 55.64* 232 4 27,246 55.64* 176 5 21,434 145 157 6 22,706 122 193 7 21,411 55.64* 181 8 25,749 55.64* 197 9 23,892 55.64* 163 10 19,130 124 157 11 18,827 116 143 12 15,637 90 174 13 16,975 90 189 14 21,111 80.84* 194 15 20,218 81.02* 200 16 22,313 83.03* 212 17 21,749 88* 226 18 15,000 101 246 2 1 18,165 105 156 2 15,333 102 141 3 42,178 207 211 4 43,591 971 183 5 27,632 69.42* 166 Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 18 6 15,421 97 156 7 15,420 99 156 8 15,420 113 143 9 16,490 64.61* 158 10 19,173 114 179 11 23,790 136 165 12 27,458 125 276 13 20,483 95 223 14 63,174 650 129 3 1 15,566 92 177 2 16,787 92 191 3 17,541 90 198 4 15,107 113 189 5 15,861 103 176 6 15,013 92 163 7 19,500 123 145 8 184141 115 158 9 18,273 95 192 10 20,229 145 192 11 25,420 56.74* 197 12 54,993 77.99* 238 13 30,910 60.45* 217 14 26,217 120 185 15 19,148 95 201 16 24,463 115 212 Outlot A 216,049 Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 19 Total Lots 48 1,104,017 Avg. Lot 23,000 NOTES: *Meets minimum lot width at building setback line. FINDINGS Subdivision, Section 18-39 (f) 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets the minimum lot area requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. However, the plat does not meet all the requirements of section 18-60 (d) requiring that lots be placed to protect natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. Wetland mitigation areas and stormwater ponding areas shall be provided within the plat. -: = ' . _: - . . _ - - - - - Section 18-57 (1) states that where a proposed subdivision is adjacent to a limited access highway, arterial or collector street, there shall be no direct vehicular or pedestrian access form individual lots to such highways or streets. Lots 12, 13 and 14, and 15, Block 2 shall be served by a private drive from Jennifer Way Jeffles-Gettftn and not via direct access to Lake Lucy Road. • ::• . . , - . . -- - - • -- . - - • - - offset of three hundred (300) feet, section 18 57 (j). The development does not meet the tree preservation requirements of section 18 61. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the city's land use plan. However, the alignment for the Lake Lucy Road does not comply with the city's preferred alignment. Additionally, as proposed, the plan does not minimize grading or provide tree preservation pursuant to sections 18-60 (d) and 18-61. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 20 Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. Staff believes that the subdivision, as proposed, does not minimize grading of the site or try to maintain existing topography and land form. The applicants proposed stormwater ponding system is inadequate and must be revised. The steep slopes on the western half of the development make the development of this area problematic at best based on the development proposal due to the severe slopes. From a land use and site design standpoint, this property should be accessed from the north, eliminating the need for excessive grading of the site. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The stormwater ponding on site does not comply with city standards. This can be resolved based on staff recommendations. If the applicant does not intend to construct Lake Lucy Road, then the applicant needs to petition the city for extension of Lake Lucy Road and utilities. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will impact the land form and existing wetlands and vegetation by the amount of grading. Staff is recommending changes to minimize the impact. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure except for the provision of on site stormwater ponding, the alignment of Lake Lucy Road, and the access to the northwest half of the Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 21 development. The plat shall be revised to provide these infrastructure elements. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Wetland Alteration Permit (Section 20-407) When approving a wetland alteration permit, the following principals shall be adhered to: 1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity may destroy or diminish the wetland. Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small parched wetland on the eastern end of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The applicant will be required to mitigate the wetland either through the enhancement of a wetland within the site or another within the watershed district as part of the city's wetland banking system. 2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation. Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small parched wetland within the required alignment for Lake Lucy Road extension. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposal minimizes the impact of the development while at the same time replacing and enhancing the wetland complexes. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland activity and its implementation. Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands on site or within the watershed. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the activity. Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 22 stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. 5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The applicant is proposing to fill a small parched wetland within the Lake Lucy Road extension alignment. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in the area. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter storm water. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: Rezoning "The Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning #94-3 rezoning 37.92 acres from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential." Subdivision "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat #94-7 subject to the following conditions: "- - - 1. Realign Lake Lucy Road to the south adjacent to the natural wetland as proposed in the city's feasibility study. 2. Submit revised utility plans for approval of fire hydrant locations. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet maximum. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details. Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 23 3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 4. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203. .. - - _ . - - . .. - - . _ . 7. Provide additional right of way for County Road 117-(Galpin Boulevard) to bring the centerline right of way width to 50 feet. 5. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance. 6. An 8 foot bituminous trail shall be constructed parallel to Lake Lucy Road. The construction will be incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road extension project. The developer shall be reimbursed for the full cost of said trail from the city's trail fund if the developer constructs said trail as part of their project. Road 117 (Galpin Boulevard) to accommodate possible future trail construction. 7. Revise Grading/Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation, 4 garage floor elevation, and standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 12. Revise the Grading/Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This 8. Obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their removal. 9. A landscape buffer shall be required along the length of County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard, and along both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, section 18-61 (a) (5). This buffer landscaping shall be developed as part of the preliminary and final plat submittal for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required. A woodland management plan must also be prepared as part of the platting process. In addition, a A landscape plan including the landscape buffer, Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 24 d forestation and replacement planting must be prepared and approved by the city. The landscape plan and woodland management plan must be prepared by a landscape professional. 10. Prepare baseline canopy coverage calculations and estimated canopy coverage removal area. Overlay the tree plan on the grading plan in order to verify tree preservation. 11. Boulevard trees along Lake Lucy Road, Jennifer Way, James Court, and Anne Alcove must be diverse with no more than two trees of the same species in a row. Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay may be considering the trees may provide a theme for the short cul-de-sacs. 12. The tamaracks on the north side of Lake Lucy Road and the west side of County Road 117 are being used as screening from traffic or noise. Since tamaracks lose their needles in the winter, another evergreen shall be used.to buffer the development. 13. The landscaping plan requires an additional 42 trees based on staffs analysis of the tree preservation, forestation, and replacement requirements for a total of 284 trees. Staff recommends that the additional 42 trees be incorporated in the landscaping plan as follows: a. Nine trees staggered for a windbreak along the western property lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Windbreak trees shall include spruce (Black Hills, Norway, White). b. Five trees grouped near the corners of Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 1; 10 trees grouped along the rear lot lines of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, Block 1; and 18 trees in groupings along the rear lot lines of Lots 1 through 11, Block 2. Rear yard tree selection shall be River Birch, Ohio Buckeye, Catalpa, Silver Queen Maple, White or Bur Oak, Hawthorne, Aspen, Arborvitae, and Balsam or White Fir. 14. The following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of the final plat: a 30 foot easement along the northern boundary of the site; a thirty foot easement along the western lot lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; the northern 50 feet of the eastern 30 feet of Lot 4, Block 1; the southern 50 feet of the eastern 30 feet of Lot 5, Block 1; the southern 25 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 6, Block 1; the northern 75 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 7, Block 1; the eastern 30 feet of Lots 9 and 10, Block 1; the western 30 feet of Lots 11, 12, and Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 25 13, Block 1; the eastern 30 feet of Lots 2 through 7, Block 3; and the western 30 feet of Lots 8 through 11, Block 3. 15. To provide slope stabilization north of Lake Lucy Road west of Lot 14, Block 2, Sumac shall be planted 7 feet on center. Such plantings shall be staggered to provide better stabilization and aesthetic appeal. Additionally, this areas must be seeded. 16. Plat the land west of Lot 14, Block 2 as an Outlot. 17. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events. Normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 18. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user fee of $63,360 assuming 32 acres of developable land. Water quantity and quality fees may or may not be assessed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road improvement project assessment methodology. : - -- • ' .- .. -. . .. ' . . . ' - . . - - . . . - .. These fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 19. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 20. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. The existing house on Lot 14, Block 3 shall be connected to the new sanitary sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes available. The well may be utilized as long as the well is on the lot and functional. Once the well fails or the property is sold the property owner shall connect to city water. Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 26 21. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The minimum easement width should be 20 feet. Maintenance access to the ponding areas shall be provided. Slopes shall not exceed 4:1 over the easement areas. 22. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. 23. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration. 24. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 25. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 26. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 27. The existing home shall change its address to be compatible with the City's addressing system once the street has been constructed adjacent the house. 28. The grading plan shall be revised as follows: -te 1) provide for 2% boulevards and 3:1 side slopes adjacent to all streets in accordance to the City's typical street standards; 2) berming shall be prohibited from all street right-of-ways; 3) the proposed pond between Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay shall be combined/relocated to the west of Gwendolen Court; 4) grading in the rear yards of Lots 4 through 8, Block 2 shall be revised to drain rear to front; 5) an interim sediment pond shall be provided on Lot 12, Block 3 until Lots 1 through 12, Block 3 are fully revegetated; 6) storm ponds shall be designed and constructed with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL) for the first one foot (depth) of water and then 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 slopes overall. Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 27 29. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet State-Aid standards. The . et • 30. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon utilities being extended from Brenden Pond unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for review and approval. 31. Lake Lucy Road shall be realigned southerly to be compatible with the intersection proposed in Brenden Pond (Lake Lucy Road and Pondview Court). 32. Right-of-way for Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay shall be increased to 60 feet. 33. The applicant shall provide potential street access and utility service to the Mancino parcel by extending Jennifer Way north of Lake Lucy Road through Lot 9, Block 2. 34. Direct driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road shall be prohibited. A private driveway shall be required to access Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 2 in accordance to the City's private driveway ordinance." Wetland Alteration Permit "The Planning Commission recommends approval of wetland alteration permit #94-3 subject to the following conditions: 1. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The proposed buffer strip shall be shown on the grading plan. 2. The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans, wetland delineation report, a map with wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland areas and a map of the soils." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application 2. Preliminary Plat, Original Submittal 3. Preliminary Plat, Revised Submittal Shamrock Ridge August 17, 1994 Revised September 1, 1994 Page 28 4. Tree Plan 5. Landscaping Plan 6. Memo from Bill Weckman to Chanhassen Planning Department dated 8/2/94 7. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 7/20/94 8. Memo from Mark Littfin to Bob Generous dated 7/1/94 9. Letter from Joe Richter to Bob Generous dated 7/18/94 10. Lake Lucy Road Alignment, Alternate 1 11. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 12. Planning Commission Minutes of 8/17/94 13. Letter from Charles W. Plowe to Bob Generous dated 8/26/94 14. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel to Bob Generous dated 8/31/94 15. Proposed Street Changes CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937.1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Ed & Mary Ryan OWNER: Ed & Mary Ryan ADDRESS: 6730 Galpin Boulevard ADDRESS: Excelsior, MN 55331 TELEPHONE (Day time) 943-1410 TELEPHONE: 474-1013 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. X Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. X Rezoning • /. 00 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review X Notification Signs /56 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUP/SPR/VACNARIWAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. X Subdivision G� TOTAL FEE $ ISS °% A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. • Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Shamrock Ridge LOCATION 6730 Galpin Blvd Excelsior, MN 55331 LEGAL DESCRIPTION see enclosed PRESENT ZONING RR REQUESTED ZONING RSF PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Single Family AG REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Single Family Residential REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Prelimary Plat 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 Iso/understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded /against the title to the pro•erty for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's OW a ahhd the original d. u -nt retu ,ed to City Hall Records. 'k." / § I - , , 1 If 4 1 / i .-, ig.atu . ,.f s i G ` Dat$ 'F'Z6;/27\-fL Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on 7-5 yFee Paid ig3CReceipt No.6 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. • , ,"'• • • • • •): : . :::•,;,,_,., 0 .. . , _ . ...; 1 1 J 9 1 ii fil . :,:li /i :•,: 11--' i 111. 0; 1! .:: . i ! ..... 0- ; 1 i "' 00, 1 1:13N10 Of . L'i Fit • ..,. ,ATI, - el)oiltViii4 _ _ _ — —- -—-—- -— 2 -ariA`riti Aft, ..,,, :•,. riersialmm.„ • ,:__.....___ • si.;..:.:, . " ,--t,.... 996 ee:4 ,---•=4;.,24,, t_ ,-:r orift, ,....,------;,._....,4•„.._.,-i,offiirvit f t ; 7 c : i I lir ' r oi,I – k . . t,„,e,••---" -- -' ot*, i4,42,40 fr,.. -..- .96 _i a i ,.i.:1"..:"., ,,: . /9_," 7,,,,, _ ( 442-6-6Tarri4. 11*ma ..i.1• 0 -,:; / h.Nt.-N.:1VI A- _ O. .., ,,-.,t7..-- . 03/4 ii- tI1‘14ft,.:.'. .A4-1. h.-,I4.i_.,i1.1,!.,._46.i_.,wi,=..4.....1..m..j...-.aM..•.'-.-,7i1i1'---.-=`1,I=i°i:at11Ii"7k_7.,.Itl_y, illv'''''.ee'-e--•-"P •.:`.'..'...•.•,,:kt ,.'"-.-, 9 'NC—NA' -Aiwa , ,...,,,,010'''''''Ir''''''''''.!....7.:,1111v-L.04414. 7 itkoliatistrook'Imimifts, opoi NI a• '1. • ,,..._IlLetii 1 y i* 1 -...11 .21,11, ,,!,a /.., 41 . 110*.,.I 0 Lot Er 01 am r 4 f11 , i ' lb- 10 i ", 19 9111.01ssi,";- -7glilAgli*,1„,.! ,-74 ' • i illw . ., 4.... ,,,„1,11Fte,. to.eir 1 I t .444 47004,11.,..F . k 0 ai ;i,. 11:**1;41p4,111141),'Plitt:..,-,-.. w ,;:j\. (13 1 ",,. \...diffV.-!*,iim-__ _.,, M /7 5 0:Mb.....L •_ i%_:.-_- ___; 00o\'. ' kapok "IlfirtitranItainari~e"– — --- do- r ityllileigl .wap-474---t-zir. _ _., g Ala = •,°'evt. .--,41),4 haredrr.- --1.-.-- 1.14‘.111°Ifeetir".A.Mr-- z ,. 41) 1`4741 IlitUlt71.2.P11--" A :-.,ft_ .,..*Ww ---- .i-----..:---•- •"*... 026 _ :7-zikilormi,,,,kaitr------- --- -p-=-..,- Pg 4i)ri, ,4 i 0.0.keirir ) ..„_.......ir,,_. o 4 'i-i fit 1 rlif----4:f. =II q .. --" CC ir i • vs ck , ‘i. •ia't (*? t 1 4„1 . .„,.#6;C.e., ,a, 42 1 1 ,i) n- - 0 6j/ •scP 1/911,171r- _, I 0.\ew I • 4 trif/IP . k '',72s. . I - • 944wiz io0/,f1.4,.p4A!,4,7 tP0iilgiir.c'i4lf,'i.ii4y1•,I i . 0f:Jk-,:_t., ; -1rt•: 1:•!•:.•:' Vbi_.-4$4I+ : L a '111 1-I1tmb;1—_01tE41vi ---—-— •• fk, „: 11.1 ill" ' ••'..'g .‘ 0, a 4 tr . (Y % I-+I 0 0 V . 0 cr , it..1 .... _........... 2415 .__,Eir-- 0 ui 2 III — Id 4 • 0_ di 2 6 , 0 .1-172 z OE - 0 Ili e.:"7.1. c0 z f a • • >4E-1-. ''' k•0 dir. - 1 I I UI -is: -4; 0 V 6 1 2 • • II r I Ill 1101110 ‘`•••-... 0 • . . ---) goisEpt iiit r5.• i J. • 13.6 w iA I f 1 X . _ib U6z mi 04 r gr nail 1 al ilI II i A ppo k• { ; gR p iv `p� i$ a i R Y it / B Cv 4 e+rrs st at.,.a.F s.,•ia�.r,m ..t.- fir•. L I I I b _ - -ISt - `- ' -• f f• i '' `'��! ti- / ',� I �gyp\ ,......./ .., 46 g3 M , ,„,,,, _ /4'q Rkil. -..,:-_,,-.11--- 1—••-----_.� - 1 . g # • .4 �• � ;Jam lj --ir 980 ! `• 4► ,( 0 inri.ili poi k _1..J a i . /, - ' (111 _ 1 .SV a d 'y. kiir m a— A` V '`/l 1 ` I P iIiII .° I 0 1 I,- " ill ,i, 1 , • 1 > llik .-...k) ..Il ,r" IAD reg 1006• i4 itialarirt .. •�•r, II, IttWil"mme ' ;1 990- , I-2--110414e I-..A, . ,‘ • • z m v , ,., t , i A • \ t 1,: ib, `� 1, 4 3 07301r( It Till....;-':.".11L- .4'9 06 , ot 710 5:: ' - _ • •+�:111 MOW € a.011A��l: 1`' i 000 i i MOO"ou...,,m..®c. I ir 47. ; -i • • • I i t! rT p S CC , I R Ei rE III % i � I - i tAga iifi{ilflfiile;I ii...=7filiiififiliii*Autumn;III 3iiiiAfifiiifiiffi6iiitetit� ififiiiliai tp ilf �� iii ii. ifiifff"iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'" i Iiililiiiiiiiin1 till; m •! L. iiiiiiiii__ -I-------iiii'••wkn•itiitiii"iiiii5sswvinl,iiiii'"ii»zt- tltNiiilliiitiitii.PLii1i X� O 2 ilii ti.liiiiillll` Iilitill'illllIM1114ll"iltililiiiiilliliiii' •iiiiiii s'itiitlliiliiiiliii 0 13 t• $ ii., .. l,.f, 21.. ,aI, , ,.. ,i,,,,i,.i, ,,,,tic il.,ii i.,F ;, , . 4,7 t. o el m ei I ). 1 t46 w 7. iA i ;i'i itoil ` 0 ��o el. • ?.!til .' .v- ii Ir gt�l��s'6 �\ ;3 :- In +.c.ill Alt•, 0\ Px .10 Lip- I i.,i / :P)1, t i ra w l 4 FJF _ itli ...— /o�aK ..ems / . li __.. - �� Ilj� ,A ire'(( . € �0 2 9n — d yd's Q�y : Illf :r, o kila------:, , - _________.. co it. l'' ::), ; !.2 ,..,...,......,..,..,...- 4 . mooer.i=ES'rowm—z,iwai .4iigJks? lf..,it , ., . :_.: ni, A ., _ ......._ ::: •• • i„..,..„,&-:,,,,, 9,80 ,10.6.----=-0,0. , _ .. .. • .4 . ,... x .i.,pt _=_0ailitiV.V4IP A, Al. 0 _ 41%itt7 030 . Aji 4,...; . - 21 / 0 ' . ..7 ' 0 ! ; , A .-.1.4%• (1/.-_,--;it.--e,vaittearli;'-:-... ' • ..i': 3 0 i • d .\,,,, , , ,... .... e, . .. offilt:o. . s ir ' --, „ _ . -^.) A gl'sfi i 1010: kb' -L �-iv°'tai/i 0 ''°;2 060 Iii ..„..aim...„,. ,....--, \�d1 �zm� 9gp= niqklirig -\ 1 r au6Z 980:_ _ \l �0? 111 ,..1. I ■ ■ %la -) ge 1 1 �1Li�'. �` ..: •1 i 'J`-tom 066▪ `' _tet , N'; ' ---------:"-';=;:---+'---------- �: '' '��. • v - I -IA • — ms 000 i—-1 ...... ‘-' I I t, I *ts I L 1-J . . i NI. I . .8 I t P I *is I •S I I i i 00410...0 1 z i E iVrItce e. 1 .9.) ,Po -a i i ifif f i 1. ti4 g 1 1 i gi - 40 1• _24#,,,.-%.':i. ',. .... 4 1 , art g 0 t lu,......i.,...;" c- • z ce, ( C C • •li ' 0 . —I ' f / ___ - ill •.AM! - ._•, .;.;.,,:,.. .;''# /' Pk i:-. , fA •Nimp,.... -......,w, 4 iik '%;-i - / - or g i ist*4 IsP "'".-" e61111. 4te. 44). 4 ii.40 W _ ft \ CV /A gi ....\ 3 \-...,,„..„4 //, . .2 ( .i.. 41114:410 lir. .iswasiiiIIIrift. 4 -'.4. 4111141-'' ' ' it fie ratio. .4, ,,,, .0:•P 4.,w INP le.Cs!'A,,, -"Set% _4* irs;* 'ArAr illy '10 11.it MA -.CV& .liP" 4P.V 9. ar •1 ----j....\ up 16. -NW Arglib,:It.r& •111164f r e.erir * A 4111. Aft:17 4701110 •'.1 1%*.,' ' -t-!Z , ' _ 1.3 el 7 -....•.„:4 7 < .,4741,..;;p-sz4:,...4.0 p 1/ ' ;":114:•, --'s----L —,,d' ./ Fri --i)) C • " c 0 ........ :404-isli f3) •;-i _ , 1111 ill il '. - -,,s ' e!xy,_ Ati L o---.0kti>7.0inezlonrot,10.- 15 11171/211 Ilsillir Pr: c 0 C • 0 t [ . slo a.-..: gi 1 ..le i....1., g... 1 .4 I. ?'• • ,,.....-- .... , •-1 80vatsmgAr-nox•eivr,Intm-.)._.. - , 4W- 68 ,!-Ipoit . , :4,,,1 • "he% , 1? '4:, f 1,-.4X-a-Eon ggir:7-1, 01,, ....... .,4,:',4e., I ;I ek -i *I I • '1. .4. -,.‘. ... % Ai 1 1 r •' , --inb,---ft..4.::...* --...„...... . i Cellit. .-2' - ' • '. - i I 1 111 IlwAR,-- ...-......E. ;--, .1' 1 , . .rdt• - '' - 1111111.111.1111111111.11111111 111.111111111111.1mmm.m. 1 . 111 •-t- e E; Z 4r r.' v R PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT �4 ‘1, CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE (612)361-1010 l\ / 600 EAST 4TH STREET.BOX 6 FAX(612)361-1025 CHASKA.MINNESOTA 55318 EsO� COUNTY Of CAVLQ August 2, 1994 TO: Chanhassen Planning Department • FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Shamrock Ridge (94-3 Rezoning and 94-7 Subdivision) Following are comments regarding the preliminary plat for the Shamrock Ridge subdivision transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated July 5, 1994. 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 80' 100' 110' 120' Urban Undivided Rural Divided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 190' 200' County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 33 foot from centerline corridor shown would provide for a potential 66 foot corridor. This corridor would not meet the • • needs for an urban-roadway. - • The city may wish to consider a wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision • • if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width ' • •• may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping.' 2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. • 3. Any proposed access construction, grading, or installation of drainage-structures within, the right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the county highway • department. Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper Contains Minimum I0% Post Consumer Waste 4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turn removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 5. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the,right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed development. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official k DATE: July 20, 1994 SUBJ: 94-7 SUB, 94-3 REZ & 94-3 WAP (Shamrock Ridge) I was asked to review the plans for the proposed Shamrock Ridge Subdivision stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; JUL 5, 1994; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " Analysis: Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments. The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations. There appears to be a number of building within the proposed subdivision which will be demolished. Demolition permits are required before the removal of any buildings. Proof of well abandonment and onsite sewage treatment system abandonment is required prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Recommendations: 1. Revise Grading/Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval . 2. Revise the Grading/Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3. Obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their removal. enclosure: 01/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo gr\safety\sat.\memos\plan\shamrock.lgl CITY OF -�i IIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN i UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official A C DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FIX)or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates 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. SC Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SENO 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. • 011 sE s 1- EWO WO F�L� — � ei► RLO 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. es- ..* ir* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY TF 40:.‘ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: July 7, 1994 SUBJ: Shamrock Ridge Planning Case #94-7 SUB, 94-3 REZ, 94-3 WAP I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed single family dwelling concept and have the following requirements: 1. The submitted street names are acceptable. 2. Submit revised utility plans for approval of fire hydrant locations. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet maximum. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details. 3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 4. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203. g:\safety\mf\94.7 • STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE No. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, 751:: JD6E � 772-7910 July 18, 1994 JI,; , (C1Ty Or r� Mr. Bob Generous, Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: SHAMROCK RIDGE, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY (City #94-7 SUB, 94-3 REZ, 94-3 WAP) Dear Mr. Generous: We have reviewed the site plans (received July 7, 1994) for the above-referenced project (SW1/4 , Section 3 , T116N-R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. The project site does not contain, or appear to directly impact, any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands; therefore, no Protected Waters DNR permit is required. You should be aware that the project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on your project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 2 . The site does not appear to be within a shoreland or floodplain district. 3 . It appears that the stormwater is treated in non-DNR protected wetlands. In general, we are opposed to the primary treatment of stormwater in wetlands. Sedimentation/treatment facilities should be used to protect the wetland from sedimentation and water level bounces which are detrimental to the basins wildlife values and water quality. The determination of what is best at this particular site should be addressed by the city and other agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands subject to the Wetland Conservation Act. 4 . There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Bob Generous July 18, 1994 Page 2 5. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296-7203) . d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, PIPL Joe Richter Hydrologist c: Minnehaha Creek Watershed, Ellen Sones U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann City of Chanhassen General File — t I .T 2 z 1i> I g{2n v \ s NP m , a 71 \ z \ P _ I Oil I. iili ii :1t- i0 ❑ _ � - t' t(•s - IP ill i1 , t e.i 41' II 11 i F., VI- II ,i III 1 Ii t.... \\--\ ! 'i 1 ; r F Eit5 11 i 11 . i del` 1I' 1 2. NI: ( v1,111 , $/2...../..."'X ot7FJfO4F r I[. el iZ > tt+� Ln 11 Ln 77, li E 1 11 _ atto. 0 °tib j6 t. > _,y CO. RD. 117 rn ' r i CIC :II fc , t o ii 1 E to M i t D r i :i= K � m t II ! i JO a I-• _ m r I 1 I ***This item has been rescheduled for Wednesday, August 17 at 7:30 p.m.*** = a - , � � c , -o E NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 4 .. - _-- f;_ !-.� PLANNING COMMISSION ��"'"N .,7:• ;,,• , 1'""i MEETING s = .'i ,' Wednesday, August 3, 1994 , I ►t� at 7:30 .m. 'r _ '0= City Hall Council Chambers —__A -' ' A 4l.i 690 Coulter Drive 3 Air as Wm Project: Shamrock Ridge Ir ._ ■ c - ll OTA - Developer: Ed and Mary Ryan 1 ► v y. �u�� a i . Location: Galpin Boulevard and - - Men= .4 / Proposed Lake Lucy Roadit ` ' Ic 1; i=-- Extension I ; ' I ' ' 1 t.,�.. • 7: 17 r, Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing to rezone 37.92 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat to subdivide 37.92 acres into 52 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit located at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and proposed Lake Lucy Road extension, 6730 Galpin Boulevard, Shamrock Ridge. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. ,. ,t Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 21, 1994. Kathy A. Gavin John & Mariellen Waldron Breck & Marliese Johnson 1851 Lake Lucy Lane 1900 Lake Lucy Road 6621 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Steven & Wendy Lame Buresh Lynn & Susan Rothberger Martin & Karen Gustafson 6651 Galpin Blvd. 6681 Galpin Blvd. 6691 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Greenery Co./Don Mezzenga Earl Gilbert III Martin & Beth Kuder C/O Scott Mezzenga 6901 Galpin Blvd. 6831 Galpin Blvd. 6931 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Brian Klingelhutz, D. Gestach, E. Jerome & Linda Carlson Dennis & Joan Clark & Leland Paulson 6950 Galpin Lake Road 6651 Hazeltine Blvd. 2031 Timberwood Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55331 Kristen A. Struyk Sam & Nancy Mancino Peter & Mary Davis 1941 Crestview Circle 6620 Galpin Blvd. 6640 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92 ACRES INTO 52 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RIDGE. Public Present: Name Address Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay David Gestach 8001 Acorn Lane Lee Paulson St. Bonifacius John & Mariellen Waldron 1900 Lake Lucy Road Martin Kuder 6831 Galpin Blvd. Steve Buresh 6651 Galpin Blvd. Peter & Marg Davis 6640 Galpin Lake Road Sam & Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions? Harberts: I just have a point of discussion. You know I certainly respect the amount of time that staff and the applicant put on this. I know it takes a lot of work on the staff's time and I respect the time that the people have taken to come here to make comments. I feel, I guess I'm just looking at, in terms of time and good use of time, with all of those issues and not really having a complete packet. I guess I'm a little concerned about spinning my wheels because I don't know, I see some of these aren't maybe requirements with regards to lots. Things like that. I don't know if that's then going to change this drastically and it's just, I guess I just don't like spinning my wheels with other things going on with my time. But anyway, that's just a point of discussion. Scott: Okay. Can I just ask a question? How many residents are here for this particular issue? Okay. Well we are scheduled to have a public hearing and we will have a public hearing. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Aanenson: Can I make a point of clarification? Scott: Sure. Aanenson: We had the same issue at staff. These are three properties are very, very complex. The reason we put it on, even though there's a lot of issues unresolved, we need to give them some direction... We came forward with our recommendation. There was no concurrence so we felt the best thing to do was to put it in front of the public and give them some marching orders so they know so they're not spending their time...so we are trying to make that, give them some clear direction on where to go with their plat so that's... Harberts: That's a good point. Thank you Kate. Scott: Okay, good. Harberts: I still think I'm spinning my wheels. Scott: Okay. Any other questions from the commissioners for staff. Would the applicant like to make, or their representative like to make a presentation? Please state your name and your address. Chuck Plowman: My name is Chuck Plowman, the project engineer representing the Ryans. Mary Ryan is here this evening if there are any questions that I am unable to answer. Ed would have loved to be here but he was involved in an accident and he's still recuperating so he's not able to attend the meeting at this time. Let me start with just a little bit of the project background. Lake Lucy Road, can you just put that map up there that shows the outlot. I'd like to see the one where Lake Lucy Road ends...specifically to give the Ryans an opportunity to evaluate their plat. See what might be most feasible and practical and...involved with the properties. So we've been spending the last 3 months going over different plans and different options and looking at exactly that. So what I'd like, I gave Dave a copy of something yesterday which is a modification for a lot of the things that we're talking about tonight and I think if you could just bear with me, I'll shed some light on a lot of things involved with bringing up some major issues. Let me just start with, the initial plat was submitted, let me call it Plan A showing Lake Lucy Road up at the top. Staff told us that this was not a good plan because of the impacts on the environment and the excessive grade, actual grading up into the property north of us. So we came back with trying to address those concerns. We did another plan, without much input from staff but just giving some, they gave us some direction and we just come up with a second drawing that we submitted to them prior to the last scheduled meeting that we were going to be on. That showed Lake Lucy coming right down the center of that corridor. And what I liked about 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 this one so much was that it was the most sensitive to the environment. ...all the trees along the north. Gave us long lots this way. Long lots this way. Stayed out of the wetlands. It was just the most favorable as far as environmentally concerned. It gave us some nice walkout lots here and some liveable lots here because we've got a lot of room in the back to do some grading. This was bumped down because staff said that we don't want all of these driveways connecting to Lake Lucy Road. So that brings us to the plan that we have before you tonight. This is almost identical to the one in your packet but there was a couple things done to it to address some issues...Here we're 60 feet south of the property line with the beginning of the right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road. That enabled us to construct the road width along...boulevard and also a 3 to 1 slope and if we do get into the trees, it's very, very minor. And it also allows us to have two cul-de-sacs, one to the south and some very desirable lots looking over a wetland. This is what we're really studying the entire plat for what's economically favorable to the plat and also what's favorable to the environment. So we've come up with this plan. We are not encroaching on the wetlands. We're not taking out the trees. We're coming up with a favorable plan for development and we feel this is the plan that's best. Let me just talk a little bit about this. This is with the Lake Lucy Road going with this original alignment to the south. With the cul-de-sacs going to the north. We end up with tuck under lots. Two for sure, possibly more. We end up with destroying another tree...because of the elevation of the road. The slope will require some wetland...so this one's not favorable from a development standpoint. It is definitely not favorable from the environment standpoint. Let me just back up a little bit to the staff report. Let me just talk about Options A, B and C. Option A I believe was the one I just showed you. Option A was the... Okay, I really just went over that and described to you why that's not a good choice. Option B, which is the one that we just talked about, which we like. As far as the location of Lake Lucy Road. Option C is not at all favorable to the Ryan's because it's going to, this number of lots are going to be getting up here plus they're ready to develop now. They want to develop now. And initially we had hoped when we started a few months ago, they were looking only at the alignment and wanting to get some location or connecting point set. That has changed. They spent the money to have all this work done, and research done and they've got a different mind set. They do want to develop. They don't want to wait 2 years, 5 years, whatever. So they're here. They're here to get your approval so they can develop. So Option C is not a good option. And I was understanding it also is not very good for the future plans for a cul-de-sac to come down into this property through the trees so that to me would be another reason to not go with that one. Let me just touch on some of the issues. I know Dave's aware of some of them that I addressed. Things have been happening so fast. I get a short notice about some things that need attention and then Dave gets a short time to look at it so again, it's kind of works both ways. The 300 foot spacing from Galpin Blvd to the first street. The initial thought by staff was that this was going to have a ripple effect. It's going to change all these intersections. When in fact it didn't. This intersection moved I figure about more like 100 feet. 110 feet or something like that. But 26 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 this one really didn't change all except for that moving over making these lots deeper and these were excessive before so they fit the plan. What we did also with that is, instead of having, see how the street is moving up and in fact it's going to the right. Once we switch this street over, it was not workable doing it that way. Now we had a previous plan that showed it coming this way so this is going back to that plan...Plan B so we kind of referred it back to that on this plan and we think it works much better. We did lose another lot. Now we're down to 49. We're moving in the wrong direction. So I guess the effect of the 300 feet was not a major issue, and I know that's...not only your's but mine. But that wasn't...everything stayed the same... Along with this reconfiguration right here, the 17 foot by the way was also added to Galpin. The wetland setbacks. There was a drafting error on a couple lots which showed this pad down here so it was...and was obvious that it was too close to the wetland but when in fact there is room there so that's not... The storm water treatment ponding area was also an issue and before we turned the configuration things, we had no choices where the inlet and outlet was going but since then we reconfigured this, which allowed us to construct a pond in this fashion. And also discharging the storm sewer at this end of the pond. Outlets at this end of the pond. We have plenty of volume. As you can see it's quite large. So we do have an ideal situation with the discharge and the outlets being offset into the pond and that's what Dave was looking for. Something in that fashion. On the wetlands itself, can you differentiate between the green and the yellow? Okay, the yellow is actually fill that's going into the wetland. This area is not filled because we're actually excavating in here. But wherever fill is taking place, you have to follow rules to mitigate for that. The green areas are mitigation areas. And those areas sum up to a little shy of being 2 to 1. So we need to confer with Diane about what our options might be. There's no credit given for storm water ponds according to the rules, even though we're creating wet ponds, it doesn't apply for mitigation. The option I was looking at was...the cul- de-sac a little bit. Reducing the fill so it is workable because I did...find where I can do that. Lower it down and reduce the...that 2 to 1 ratio. Time is running short so this is what I came with. I looked at the canopy coverage, because that was one of the things that they were looking for, and I count 10%. So there was an error made by one of the fellows...came up with, what was it? Generous: 75. Chuck Plowman: Yeah, so 10%. We do have the issue of these lots fronting on Lake Lucy Road. The idea of private drives is real negative for the same reasons that were mentioned before because who wants to live with a private drive, even if it's facing out, a private drive between these homes is just not good. And we certainly don't want to do that. I guess what I would like to ask is that separation would be given a common drive for 2 of them instead of one for each because I know the city does allow access to collector roads where there's not a good alternative. I think this is the case where there is not a good alternative. We've done 27 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 real well in keeping everything off Lake Lucy Road. I think this is a piece of property that', no matter how you slice this up, it happens. You can't get away from it. Again I think I'm just going to reiterate but I feel this is the best plan. This is the plan we want and we want you to consider this for approval tonight contrary to what staff is recommending so all the actions from here are taken into account with some items I've clarified and addressed. Not to make it any lighter, I wanted to also mention the fact about the potential of using 50 foot right-of-ways. Staff discussed with us...about doing that. I forget which layout we were looking at. But the advantage to 50 foot right-of-ways, for example here. We could use the 10 feet and pull this right-of-way in. Along with that we pulled the grading slope 10 feet in. It's a plus as far as... 60 foot right-of-ways are really something that have been used for many years and more and more we're going to 50 because the utilities are now going in a common trench so we don't need that room we used to have in the boulevards and the easements that they used to have for gas, telephone and electric. They're all going in one trench so the 50 foot right-of-way's working well. We can live with the 60 but I think if it's possible, we'd like the 50. I really had no further comments unless there's any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Scott: Good. Any questions for the applicant? Harberts: Could you just take one more minute and just kind of resummarize why you prefer the alignment of Lake Lucy? You know your preference as to why again. Chuck Plowman: Sure. This location of Lake Lucy Road was pulled away from the north property line so that we could preserve this tree line along this north property line, and I know the Mancino's are very concerned about that and... So this location allows us to build a road with the boulevard and...it's very tight but I'm saying we can get...in here and preserve the boulevard and save trees. On the other side, we're not encroaching onto the wetland with any fill. We do have a nice location here for a treatment pond and discharging runoff before it goes into the wetland. As far as the talk of there being mass grading, I've been involved with a few sites that are like this. There's going to be mass grading, I don't care how you look at it. And it's not a problem. You know we need to be sensitive to the trees. The wetlands. We can move a lot of dirt. It doesn't cost that much when it comes to developing land. I mean it's, there's a limit obviously but this isn't a problem as far as, you know if you move 2 feet of dirt, the tree's gone. If you move 10 feet, the tree's gone. It doesn't make any difference. Harberts: Thank you. Chuck Plowman: Do you want to hear the reasons why I don't like the other one? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Harberts: No. I got those down. I just wanted to again, just make sure I clearly understood the preference of why on that one. Thank you. Chuck Plowman: Well obviously from a developer's standpoint., we have lots that we can sell for a good price. If we put the cul-de-sacs up to the north, we lose lots or value. Scott: Good, any other comments or questions? Good, thank you sir. This is a public hearing and can I have a motion please. Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: The public hearing is now open. If you'd like to speak about this particular item, please step forward and give us your name and your address. Don't all stand up at once. Thank you sir. Steve Buresh: Steve Buresh again from 6651 Galpin Blvd. One small question. Now this is also a proposed approval of a preliminary plat drawing for the area. Scott: Yeah. And then a rezone from RR to RSF. Steve Buresh: Right. Well that in fact is what I had the biggest problem with. This particular asking for, which I guess has been revised down to 50 now, single family homes, may fit in with the residential single family but the residential single family rezone does not fit in with this area at all. The area is large lot. The lots on Lake Lucy Highlands area are 2 1/2 acres. That is probably some of the smallest lots in the area. And I think that if we allow it to be subdivided as it is currently, we're totally going to destroy the look of the area. That's probably something that we want to attain at some point. I think we have to strongly look at the people that are in the area now. What their wants and needs are but also consider the future obviously. We can't have all this land if it's not going to be developed at some point in time. That's just not feasible to believe that that can happen. But I guess my recommendation is not to rezone it as residential single family but in fact keep it as rural residential and work out some kind of agreement like we've done in the Lake Lucy Highlands area and I guess I wouldn't see a problem with it being even 1 1/2 acres per lot. This would fit, still fit in with the aesthetics of the area and this particular location of this proposed development is right in the middle of the deer migration path. I know in fact because I wake up every morning and have deer crossing my property. They go right into this area. This is going to destroy the wildlife in the area, but I'd like to reiterate that it's just destroys the aesthetic value of that area. So I strongly recommend that you do not rezone this as residential single family. Thank you. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Scott: Okay. Kate, RSF. 15,000 square foot lots. This is approximately what, averages 20. Generous: 22. Scott: 22, okay. The reason why I brought that up is that, and this has been guided in our comprehensive plan as a RSF area. What the applicant could have done is put in 15,000 square foot lots and would have met the minimum requirement for lot size in a residential single family. So we feel that this is preferable. It's beyond what the minimum would be but your comments are appreciated. I think that development is going to happen and basically what we see, our position is that we try to get the best that we can for the city and it's very rare and I think since, in the last 2 years that I've been involved here, I don't think that we've put through a development that met the minimums. I don't think we really accept the minimums. We try to encourage better but no, you're comments are well taken because you know you're used to a certain type of lifestyle and what we're trying to do is trying to manage the land use as best we can but they always have to be subject to the ordinances that we deal with but thank you very much. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Peter Davis: Yes, I'm Peter Davis, 6640 Galpin Blvd. Could I ask that that map be put back up which showed the two different properties. I wanted to speak to several items, specifically I was encouraged to hear that there is a concern over the aesthetics and the ambience of the area. We just recently moved into the area. We knew that this development was about to take place. What I wanted to point out, and since some of you have started to walk the property and is generally aware of the aesthetics and what some of the unique features are. This gentlemen spoke of some of the migratory habits. There are a lot of ecosystems that are really coming into play here. Not only the deer but we have snow owls and bat populations. Pheasant runs that are taking place from across Galpin Lake Road where actually coming up from other wildlife areas to the northeast coming through this property and out into these wetlands and then going and spreading out back across Galpin in both directions. So what I wanted to point out was the fact there are actually quite a number of different ecosystems, both plant and wildlife that are going to be impacted by this development with all of the rapid that has been taking place in Chanhassen. I think it's very important that there's some considerations being made. We're very encouraged by the Mancino's efforts to set up some buffer zones and we would like to recommend that you actually consider some of the other effects of grading, as I understand it, some of the mitigation land that would enable some of the protection for these migratory patterns that exist and cutting from the northeast to the southwest. Secondly I wanted to recommend that from an ambience standpoint in the area, the use of private drives. We currently share a private drive with the Mancino's that was, has subject to a lot of easements and what not and are finding that the arrangement to be quite workable. We want to encourage some of that kind of development because I think it adds to 30 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 the area. It promotes somewhat of a lower density which is why we actually chose to move out to this area. And lastly I wanted to speak to the nature of the development in terms of the overall road and density and I wanted to encourage the city to do anything it could to accelerate any traffic work that was going to go on as was mentioned tonight to us earlier about the light at TH 5. Since that, there is quite a bit more traffic that is already coming into some of the developments on the south. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Yes sir. Sam Mancino: Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. To get back to a point we made earlier. We know that this...potential to develop but we would like to revisit this plan for a moment because we are going to... What I'd like to borrow these for a minute if I could. To remind you of the configuration of our property. The lines okay start immediately south of our property line. And there's a stand of trees along here that straddles either side of the line on that property and there's some bluffs here. When we first became aware of the Ryan's intent to develop, we went out and tried to understand the impact that that was going to have on us and understand it from an access point of view and a utility point of view, from land use point of view, and from conservation and things like that. One of the things we had to understand first, what was going to go on next to us and what basically was the land use intent and a lot of the first things that we found was the original design pushed Lake Lucy Road up to the property line. That the intent was to grade basically all the way through the tree line and on this site plan that would put that grading about here where our house is. So that concerned us to begin with. Just a little concern. Throughout the process of seeing the plans start to evolve here, what we've seen is a continual kind of a paradon that was drawn originally on a flat piece of property but has ultimately translated itself into turning the land into a flat land. They're trying to take all of the ground from here and transpose it over on this side by grading all the way up. And I think that what we've heard is just basically to maximize the number of lots, which is not our point to comment on other than it does tell us about the size, the shape and configuration of that and that it no way is that compatible with what we see going on up here. That we would like to argue against forcing any penetration at this point because we think we can access our property through here, ultimately migrate out through here...for a connection at this point. We are concerned on a few other things. As their grading plan started to evolve, even their latest version which pushes the road down 60 feet, still has severe grading and as their engineer has said, we won't lose too many trees here but as he's also said, if you grade 2 feet you lose trees anyway. So what we would like to request is a 30 foot easement, conservation easement along here. The consequence of their grading, any of the remaining trees on their property, which are indicated through this section and show up on some of these plans, will all go away. They're not preserving a single tree that I'm aware of in this section of the property so at minimum we'd like to be able to request that this be a buffer be provided and that we be given an appropriate utility easement 31 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 for the lot to the edge of the conservation easement for future access. We also agree with staff that in their current plan, I'm not sure if it will show it on here but what is shown as Lot 10 is an unbuildable lot and they're trying to build some very, very steep retaining walls and do some severe grading again on the premise that more lots equals more money and I'm not certain that that's an acceptable premise. It's possible but I'm not sure that I believe that. And that I think as another by product of this 60 foot piece, if you look at the grades here, it's probably very doubtful whether they'll be able to grade out and...encroaching on the required conservation land. Charles, is there anything that you'd like to add? Charles Stinson: I'd like to add to if I could. I think a lot of it, Charles Stinson. Minnetonka. I think the point being that we're real concerned about anything that happens across there, just as we're, I thought your comments on the last project were just very good as far as taking the time to identify really what's happening here because I think just having hiked this site and I think the same thing across there and I'd suggest that maybe if everybody could, it'd be really helpful because I think you can really see how the lay of the land is and what's going on and how both access. How important it is for the access points here without disturbing the change of topography here as well as down here. That if you brought the utility lines, the utilities up here and here to the tree zone, we could have access here. But leaving everything unmolested so to speak, especially the road coming up. One thought I had and this isn't I talked to the Mancino's and I'm not having these comments representing them. They're just my own as a citizen but could you put that back up on the screen. Just a thought I had is that I believe there's always a winning solution for everybody, including the land owners and all the neighbors but it always takes a long time to get there. I think Sam had a great quote from Mark Twain that was, if I had more time I would have written a shorter letter, and I think it really applies to development. The longer you think about it, you can always find a simpler way of doing it than makes everybody happy. But I think one of the thoughts is, I think one nice thing about having a road at this point was the fact that, and I liked the other idea about the road coming up here instead of right here. I guess I'll do one thing at a time. I think the engineer's idea of coming up here I think was a good idea. Cul-de-sac this so you don't have a road here and I was just wondering if you could do the same thing with that one. Cul-de-sac from here so you don't have anything so close to the intersection there, just as far as safety to that corner and you're just having the streets, two openings here. But the thought over here, the nice thing about having a little, and just for the citizens driving by as you're looking across the wetland and you're not doing anything to it and it's kind of a pleasant drive in the midst of a lot of development. The ideal thing for here would be perhaps some private drives or do some as private drives going up here. But the other thought is, I just whispered to the Mancino's to see if they'd be interested but you know there's a value that you put on on this piece of property that you're going to get from developing and selling it and if you back out the cost of what it costs for the roads and utilities, maybe there's a land value that the Mancino's would just buy from 32 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 you and then you wouldn't have to worry about developing it. I know you still have the pheasants running around and the deer and everybody'd be happy but I don't know if there's any, if that's possible to discuss about that but it just seems like there's a lot of development happening in a small area and that's it. Sam Mancino: One other thing that I'd like to add. Throughout this process I've appreciated the difficulty that staff has gone through in trying to put all these pieces together. They've worked awfully hard at it. They have made an alternative suggestion about C, about exactly a variation on their point which is as much as this area relates to development from that site, given sequencing, yes. This area up here does actually relate more to development but there's a definite sequencing issue. We have had very little time since the report came out to think about how C would work. I know this was a sketch but when I actually put the pen and the ruler on it, we found that our house was actually right here and so we, before we comment on that we'd like to have a little time to understand the engineering implications of that kind of a plan. So we'd like to reserve comment on that at this particular time, if that would be okay. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Okay, seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please. Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: Okay, where do I start? Mr. Buresh made some comments as it relates to the zoning and the zone change and I think you made some good points as it related to that but the other thing that I, another important factor we look at when dealing with zone changes and looking at the comprehensive plan for how this is developed in the ultimate relates to how is this going to fit in with the other parcels and as I look at this parcel, the Shamrock Ridge, you look at County Road, or Galpin here and in the future that area, or that road will be a 4 lane road. So you have that as somewhat of a buffer between the other land use to the east. And then also I think the developer has done a reasonably good job of orienting the ponds, etc to provide some open space beyond that to the west before you actually get into the development area with the lots that are indicated. And even the lots along that side are fairly large size lots in comparison. They're above the average in size. So we understand the residents concerns as they relate to transition with density and I think we're trying to do as good a job as we can as it relates to the ultimate development for this area. So we try to work that into account. Looking at the staff report and walking the area and kind of getting a feel for the relationship of this parcel with the other two parcels. This is, they're definitely 33 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 all together and really you have to look at how it's going to work. I think the staff is pretty close in terms of their ideas on this. I would choose, or I feel that the Lake Lucy Road alignment as originally proposed by the city along the southern portion of the parcel, is the best alignment. The other major point that staff makes relates to the western 1/3 of the property. That essentially that arm west of the wetland area there. That appears to be premature in terms of the development of this area at this time and I would support that area being platted as an outlot at this time. I mentioned it with the other plat. I look at this extremely steep hill and it's, the views to the south over the wetland are really actually breath taking. It's a very beautiful area. I can, from my perspective, if I could see this whole area being graded flat and I don't know, I just can't see what would be gained by that process. So I think the road probably has the least impact on the area in it's proposed alignment. I did have one question for you Bob. As it relates to the tree stand on that western portion. I look at the tree inventory. I think it's, let's see. Something like 621. Is there 648? Somewhere in there. There's quite a few reasonably sized trees. Do you know if those trees will be saved with the alignment? The proposed alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The city's alignment. I know, I don't want to put you on the spot but I. Generous: No, I haven't really... Ledvina: Right, right. Well whatever. I think the possibilities of those trees being saved increase. I don't know for a fact but I think the possibilities increase there so, and that's something that I'd like to see looked at. I had a question about trails and that recreational opportunities. We have a trail proposed along Lake Lucy. Lake Lucy Drive. Is that on the south side or? Generous: North side. Ledvina: North side, okay. Are we proposing any trail or easement along the west side of the wetland area which you've identified as Outlot A? I know in the past we've done a lot of trails around wetlands and I'm just wondering, this is a pretty large wetland and I don't know if there's a good chance or an opportunity to have a trail around there and how that would fit into our trail needs. Generous: I don't believe the Parks Department has looked at that. That's actually on the Carlson property so that hasn't been proposed with the development. This wetland continues over to the west. Ledvina: Right. Well, continues to the south where Outlot A is, yeah. Just a thought. I don't know if you would take a look at how that fits into the overall scheme because I know in the parcels further to the south towards TH 5, we've got trails that are along our wetlands 34 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 there and those are nice amenities and if we could do something like that here, at least get an easement there, that might make some sense. Let's see. I guess I'm not going to look at a lot of the details but I would support the staff recommendation of generally I think they've done a good job of evaluating this and I think that this thing, this plat would need some work before it could really be considered tying into the overall development of this area. Scott: What kind of direction would you give? Ledvina: Well, I would give I think, just as I mentioned, I would prefer the feasibility study alignment. I would prefer that the western 1/3 of the parcel be platted as an outlot. And that area, that very steep slope area be developed somehow. I know Mr. Mancino mentioned that the street goes right through his house. Obviously we don't want that but maybe there's another alignment to the west that might work there. I definitely think that area should be served via access from the north. And as I look at it, maybe there's a possibility of serving it from the east somehow but by private drive as Mr. Stinson has mentioned. So I think those are the most important things. I generally see a lot of grading that I don't think is necessary but it's not as critical in the eastern portion of the property as it is on the western portion of the property so maybe some, a little more sensitivity can be used in the grading processes if this is redeveloped. Scott: Good, Ladd. Conrad: I ask a question of Dave. Is it real clear to you that Lake Lucy Road shouldn't be shifted to the north? Is there any solution? Hempel: I believe the City Council's already made that determination with the approval of... on June 13, 1994. They approved the feasibility study and authorized preparation of construction plans and specifications for Phase 1 which is only up to that intersection of the Brenden Pond but the intent is to continue with future phases on the southern realignment. Conrad: It sure seems like that portion on the western part of this plat relates more to the Mancino development than to this one. I support the staff recommendations. I think the developer should, has to work. There's obviously a difference of opinion and I think staff brought up some, a lot of good points. I think they have to be ironed out before it comes back. Scott: Good, Ron. Nutting: I also support staff recommendation. The applicant has attempted to address some of the issues tonight. I need to see staff's response to those items before responding to them. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 I can't act in a vacuum and so I would support tabling this application and addressing it. It also, when you've got a key issue with just the southerly versus the northerly route of the road and it seems to, it appears from what was said here tonight that the southerly route is somewhat cast in. Aanenson: I don't want to differ with Dave but the Council did, they did leave an option on the Gestach-Paulson piece. That Outlot A that showed a portion over to the south so in deference to what the Ryan's are trying to do. There was some flexibility. We know it has to touch down on a certain point on Galpin Boulevard. There were two proposals shown. A northerly and southerly one in the original, in the original Lake Lucy alignment. A northerly and southerly alignment and they gave feasibility for the supplementary phase, they left the option out whether it goes to the north or to the south so I think their response that they were trying to decide what works best for them and they pushed it to the north. That's what they originally came in with. And we said it just didn't work because they're grading into the Mancino's property... Then we started moving up and down the property trying to figure out where it works best. And going back to what Matt said, you can see the dilemma we were in. Throwing out property lines. You just look at, how should this property best be served. That's what we came up with and that's, the problem is that the property lines don't follow the natural topography and as Mr. Plowman indicated, once you...2 feet, what's the difference. Well that's the problem. There are some unique natural features there that we're trying our best to try to maintain. And it's not a flat, square piece of property that you can lot out 15,000 square foot lots. It's got some unique features but they will respond to the option of, there are two options showed in the...study for Lake Lucy. One to the north and one south so that's what they were responding to and I just want to make sure that that was clear. And that's what we were asking your direction to give to them. Do you want to go to the north or to the south and our preference was, to keep it south. That's what...keep it towards the middle. Nutting: The impact if it was to the north on the previous applicant's proposal, just looking back at that. Do you have any drawings? If the road was to the north. Hempel: I'm sorry, which development? Aanenson: The Ryan's? Scott: Gestach? Nutting: No. Scott: Gestach-Paulson? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Nutting: Paulson. Aanenson: Yes. Generous: You'd have lots on the south side of the Lake Lucy Road and on the north side of Lake Lucy Road. Aanenson: Street front facing lots. Nutting: Okay. So you'd have the issue of private drive. Aanenson: Front facing lots on a collector street, yeah. Right. Nutting: I guess I would concur with staff's recommendation and Matt's observations as well in terms of the southerly route so I don't have any other comments. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission table Case #94.7 SUB, is that right? Scott: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. The Shamrock Ridge subdivision plan. Scott: Do we need to table 94-3 and then the rezoning and the wetland alteration permit? Okay, why don't you add that. Ledvina: And I would add those under the items as well. Scott: Good. Can I have a second? Conrad: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the issue. Or all three of them. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Subdivision #94-7, Rezoning #94-3 and Wetland Alteration Permit #94-3. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Scott: Okay, thank you all for coming. 38 CHARLES W. PLOWE, CONSULTING ENGINEER 9180 LEXINGTON AVE. N.E. CIRCLE PINES, MN 55014 (612) 785-1043 FAX 786-6007 August 26, 1994 Bob Generous, Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: SHAMROCK RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT-single family residential Dear Mr. Generous, Enclosed are copies of the revised preliminary plat drawings for your review. As we have discussed the alignment of Lake Lucy Road at the west end of Shamrock Ridge has not been changed from the northerly locations as shown on the previously submitted preliminary plat. The southerly alignment (option 1 of the feasibility report dated May 25, 1994) does not allow development of the westerly portion of Shamrock Ridge in a practical manner. To develop culdesac lots off of Lake Lucy Road with the southerly alignment would result in significant loss of trees along the north property line, require retaining wall construction and provide tuck under type lots of lower value than walkout lots overlooking the treed wetland area. In addition, some wetland fill would occur to construct Lake Lucy Road along the wetland. We feel the northerly alignment (option 2 of the feasibility report) , as modified to sixty feet south of the north property line, is the location needed to provide a more feasible lot layout and reduces environmental impacts by preserving trees and avoiding wetland fill. We have made revisions and additions to the attached preliminary plans to address the items in your staff report. Please call me with any questions or comments regarding the above. Sincer- y, Charles W. Plowe, P.E. CWP/zs enc. cc: Ed & Mary Ryan CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: August 31, 1994 SUBJ: Updated Preliminary Plat Review for Shamrock Ridge File No. 94-18 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings stamped "August 8, 1994", revised August 25, 1994 and prepared by Charles W. Plowe Consulting Engineer, we offer the following comments: WETLANDS According to the wetland delineation performed by Arlig Environmental,Inc. three wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows: Basin 1 is the large wetland located on the western boundary of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the west; approximately 4.7 acres of wetland is on-site. The wetland is classified as a natural wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance. Basin 2 is located along the eastern edge of the property. The wetland is approximately 0.8 acre in size. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. It appears that this basin will be eliminated and converted into a stormwater treatment pond as a result of the proposed development and the extension of Lake Lucy Road. As a result,the area filled will require mitigation. The Army Corps of Engineers will require mitigation for fill and excavation at a ratio of 1:1. However,in accordance to state and local regulations, a ratio of 2:1 is required. Basin 3 is located in the southeastern corner of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the south; approximately 0.4 acre of wetland is on-site. This wetland is part of a wetland complex and it drains south into Basin 1. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. Bob Generous August 31, 1994 Page 2 Regulations A replacement plan will be required as part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance (CWO) requirements. The City administers the WCA. In addition to the replacement plan requirements, staff would like the following information as part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils. The Army Corps of Engineers will also require a permit application for the alteration of wetlands. They should be contacted for their requirements. The WCA and the CWO require a wetland replacement ratio of 2:1 for wetlands filled. The wetland replacement plan should be designed to meet the existing functions and values that have been removed as a result of filling in other wetlands. It is possible to replace the wetlands at a ratio of 1:1 in upland and a ratio of 1:1 as wetland restoration. The City is going to start a wetland bank in the near future by restoring wetlands that have been drained. It may be possible to purchase banking points as part of the mitigation for this site. Staff thinks that wetland replacement should occur in the large wetland to the west rather than creating a small wetland adjacent to a large stormwater pond. The WCA was written to replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible or prudent. Alternatives for avoiding wetland impacts should be considered as part of the wetland alteration permit process. In addition, to the requirements of the WCA, the CWO 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 is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. The proposed grading plan will have to show the buffer strip and the appropriate house setbacks. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. Bob Generous August 31, 1994 Page 3 In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-developed and post-developed conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre-developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2.5-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre-developed and post-developed conditions. Water Quality The SWMP has established a user fee an—assessment—Fate for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. If the applicant is proposes to constructs the water quality basins, these fees will be waived and credit given for any oversizing. Water Quantity The SWMP has established a user fee an—assessment—rate for different land uses based on an average, city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity as- sessment fee of $63,360 assuming 32 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with the SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. The exact fees will be determined after final review and approval of the construction plans and specifications and Lake Lucy Road assessment methodology if applicable. DRAINAGE The development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed. The SWMP should be reviewed by the applicant's engineer and the site designed in accordance with the SWMP design to the extent feasibly possible. All runoff shall be pretreated before discharge to any of the existing wetlands. Similar to Brenden Pond, Lake Lucy Road will intersect this parcel. The applicant's plans have included a segment of Lake Lucy Road; however, it does not correspond to the City's feasibility study. The Lake Lucy Road alignment is shifted northerly to facilitate two cul-de-sacs on the south side of Lake Lucy Road adjacent to wetlands. A storm water retention pond to pretreat runoff from the cul-de-sacs and part of Lake Lucy Road is proposed adjacent to the Bob Generous August 31, 1994 Page 4 wetland. Another storm water treatment pond is proposed adjacent to Galpin Boulevard lying both north and south of Lake Lucy Road. Staff has recommended to the applicant's engineer to delete the southerly pond and extend storm sewer to the existing culvert underneath Galpin Boulevard. - • . .. . .. . - • • - • - .. . . . • .. - • - - - - - -- Golids to settle out. Depending on the applicant's timing, they may petition the City, similar to the Brenden Ponds developer, for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the parcel. This would be a 429 public improvement project whereby the drainage, utility and street improvements would be partially assessed back to the benefitting property owners. This alignment is also a State-Aid route where State-Aid funding may play a role to assist in the funding on the project. Unfortunately, state aid funds have been encumbered for the next three years. Another option would be for the applicant to construct the entire segment of Lake Lucy Road and be given credit for oversizing any utility lines and credit for the trail system along Lake Lucy Road. According to the City's SWMP, three storm water pretreatment ponds (Walker ponds) are proposed on the site. One is located just east of Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Boulevard. Another one is located just northerly of the wetland areas. The applicant has proposed constructing two of the three ponding areas. The SWMP also proposes a third water quality basin at the end of the ravine in the southwest corner of this development and extends westerly into Brenden Pond. It may be feasible to consider combining the proposed pond between Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay with the proposed SWMP pond in the southwest corner and Brenden Pond. This area then could be utilized as a mitigation area. The applicant may be given credit for the oversizing of the storm water treatment ponds and any trunk storm sewer facilities they install in conjunction with the overall development. This will be further reviewed upon the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. Staff encourages the applicant's engineer to review the City's SWMP plan for appropriate sizing of the ponding areas and trunk storm sewers. The storm ponds should be designed with access in mind. A 4:1 side slope is required along/over the storm pipe which discharges into the pond. The pond should be designed and constructed with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL) for the first one foot (depth) of water and the remaining at 3:1. Another alternative would be to design the pond with 4:1 slopes overall. GRADING The site contains very steep slopes in the northwesterly portion of the site as well as a small ravine area. The slopes along the northerly portion are in the range of 20% to 30%. With these types of slopes it is very difficult to prepare a site for streets and house pads without significant grading. Staff has reviewed the plan and has prepared a few options with what we believe would be a more feasible approach to developing the steeper part of the site (westerly 1/3). We believe if the parcel to the north (Mancino) was to develop prior to this development we would require Bob Generous August 31, 1994 Page 5 that a street be extended to the northerly line of this plat for a future cul-de-sac to extend lots off of this high ridge. This would make use of the existing topographic features of the property without substantially altering the grades. This would also allow for Lake Lucy Road to be extended along the southerly portion of the site to maintain a sufficient buffer and setback below the proposed homes along the northerly portion of the development. It would also allow for sufficient wetland mitigation and storm water treatment ponds adjacent to the wetland. One of the drawbacks with regards to this approach would be the lack of benefit that this development would receive from Lake Lucy Road. It is the City's intent to partially assess the benefitting properties for the construction of Lake Lucy Road; however, in this segment where no direct benefit is received the City would have difficulty assessing a portion of Lake Lucy Road. However, the City may dees have alternative financing methods such as State Aid to assist in developing the roadway system. Unfortunately, these funds are encumbered for the next three years. The grading plan as proposed with the Lake Lucy roadway alignment to the north has very steep backslopes (2.5:1) . . . -• - - . . •• • :. . . . .• . The City's typical street section requires a boulevard area and then 3:1 slopes. In addition, this alignment will not match with the development to the west (Brenden Pond). Staff has been working with the applicant's engineer in realigning Lake Lucy Road to match to the west and provide appropriate boulevards and backslopes. This appears achievable by slightly curving Lake Lucy Road southwesterly and shifting the street south by approximately 20 feet. The southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road is still preferred by staff. - .. . .. . ... •• • : .. ••- •• . . • -• • - . .. This will not allow for The proposed 8-foot wide bike trail along the north side of the road may be realigned to assist in improving the side slopes as well. The use of retaining walls may also be employed to lessen the grading impacts; however, if this is done as a part of the City project it will increase costs significantly for the construction of these retaining walls and limit future street widening if so desired. The applicant is also proposing three lots to access off of Lake Lucy Road immediately across from Mary Bay Court. Staff believes that Lot 14 I-0 is an unbuildable lot due to the steepness of the grades and proximity of Lake Lucy Road. Lots 12 8 and 13 4 may be serviced off a private driveway off of James Court which would modify the house design from a tuck-under which is not desirable to a walkout which is more valuable. Staff is also recommending extending a street stub north towards the Mancino's from James Court The street could terminate at a point short of the tree line which would provide access to the last lot (9) and future extension to Mancino's if desired. The applicant is proposing water quality ponds adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. Galpin Boulevard is classified as a local collector street and will need additional right-of-way dedicated with this plat. According to Carver County, a minimum corridor of 100 feet should be reserved for future upgrading to a four-lane street. Therefore, it is necessary neeessary4ef The applicant is to dedicating an additional 17 feet of right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard to fulfill the County's requirement. - - - _ . : . . - . . . • • . . .. - -- • . Bob Generous August 31, 1994 Page 6 - - - 4.- Boulevard. Staff recommends the applicant redesign the intersection to be 300 feet from the center line of Galpin Boulevard. This will also play a domino effect to the other two intersections to the west (Jennifer Way and Mary Bay). This will significantly alter the plat changes. The backyard drainage from Lots 19 through 30, Block 1 will be directed to a wetland located in the southeast corner of the site. Staff recommends that an interim sediment pond be constructed prior to runoff entering the wetland. The sediment pond may be removed once the lots are revegetated. Staff is concerned about the grading behind Lots 4 through 8, Block 2. The proposed grade directs runoff extremely close to the house pad on Lot 4, Block 2. Staff has recommended to the applicant's engineer that this needs to be revised to promote a rearyard to front yard drainage pattern. The City requires a streetscape plan for lots abutting the collector type streets. Therefore, --.- • :.• : .. . . - • . . :•: . . • i _.. :.• : _. . _• . _ UTILITIES As part of the City's Lake Lucy Road extension, the utilities will be brought to the intersection of proposed Pond View Court and Lake Lucy Road approximately 400 feet west of this development. Utilities are proposed to be extended along Lake Lucy Road. However, since there will be a gap between the plats, it will be necessary for the City and/or developer to extend Lake Lucy Road to service this development. Without that project, this development is premature. • - •• - • •• -- . . '. • - . - . - • . - • - . Staff has reviewed the access and utility service needs to the Niancino parcel and believes it is prudent, at this time, to require extension of utilities and street access north along James Court (through Lot 9, Block 2) to potentially serve a portion of Mancino's. The existing home on Lot 14 32, Block 3 (Ryan's) is currently on a septic and well system. The house should be connected to the new sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes operational. The well may be utilized as long as it is on the same lot and functioning properly. Bob Generous August 31, 1994 Page 7 Once the well fails or the property owner sells, the property shall be required to connect to city water per city ordinance. EROSION CONTROL The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be required around all tial wetlands being preserved. The steep slopes may also require some form of terraced erosion control fencing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process. STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Another access will also be extended from the west if the City continues with the extension of Lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road may be built under the City's improvement project program if so petitioned by the applicant and authorized by the City Council. Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use Plan. It is also part of the City's Municipal State-Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision ordinance, direct driveway access onto a collector street should be restricted or controlled whenever feasible. Staff believes that Lot 14 4-9, Block 2 located north of Lake Lucy Road, is not a buildable lot; however, Lots 12 g and 13 9, Block 2 should have a driveway access from James Court which would eliminate any driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff believes this is a feasible alternative to having direct access on to Lake Lucy Road and should be required as a Condition of Approval. The alignment of Lake Lucy Road west of this development has not been finalized. The City has prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard. There are two other parcels of land that are directly impacted by the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The first parcel is located just west of this development and proceeding ahead with a preliminary plat (Gestach parcel - Brenden Ponds). The other parcel (Mancino) is located to the north of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property owners several options for access to the Mancino parcel from the Brenden Pond development and this development. Brenden Pond will be providing the Mancino parcel access to the westerly portion via private driveway. Staff has also met with the Ryans to discuss two potential alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact this development. There is no clear-cut alignment of Lake Lucy Road that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation. The preliminary plat of Shamrock Ridge has utilized a northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and finds numerous problems from a design standpoint which will have to be resolved, which may or may not thus-peteatielly reduce the number of lots. The applicant's engineer will be supplying staff with a revised plat that addresses most of these Bob Generous August 31, 1994 Page 8 problems. Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through this parcel which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very steep slopes. However, this alignment works well with the existing terrain and minimizes impacts to the wetlands. The resulting impact from the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road requires short, steep cul-de-sacs as well as tuck-under type homes to the north of Lake Lucy Road unless access is from the north (Mancinos). Staff . . - - _. . . _ -- - .• • . . --• • • - •- .• • _ ': :, " .. ..• - •. . still believes that the southerly alignment is the preferred alignment for Lake Lucy Road. The proposed plan at this time still needs some minor alignment changes in order to achieve 3:1 backslopes along Lake Lucy Road and match the touchdown point on Brenden Pond (Gestach Paulson). The applicant's engineer and City staff believe this can be accomplished if the northerly alignment is acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 80-foot wide right-of-way for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the development. The plans also propose a 60-foot wide right-of-way on all the streets except for Mary Bay and Gwendolen Court, and construction of the City's standard roadway section for the interior streets. The right-of-way for Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay shall be widened to 60 feet vs. 50 feet unless the applicant can demonstrate some benefits to the City. Street grades range from 0.5% to 7% which is the City's maximum grade allowed. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as part of the final plat submittal. Should Access to the Mancino parcel shall be provided by extending Jennifer Way to the north : • . . • - - . of James Court through Lot 9, Block 2, then the road right of way shall be dedicated with the final plat and conditions stipulated in the development contract that this street may be extended in the future. Staff also recommends that • - • .• . - . . . . - . . . - - - • •, the street north/south portion of James Court name should be changed to Jennifer Way. .. . . . • - - .., •_- . . street to M., - - !O. .. . - • : :: . . -- . .. - . . Bob Generous August 31, 1994 Page 9 ApRV„T.-�:-Cons - • .. .. - - . . • - . . - . _. - _. • . . . - of the ridge. • . . .. • .. . - - . .-_ .- . .. . . - , _, . _. • . .. - - .. - -. - . . . - . •: • : . . -. ! . . • , : °: - : via James Court from the Ryan's plat. . . _ . .. . . rrs • . . . . . . . . . - .. • .• . • - • - .. . . • - • .. ' . . . . - Conclusion Staff has reviewed this plat submittal and still believes that the southerly alignment (Lake Lucy Road) should be followed. However, as a compromise, staff would be open to a northerly Lake Lucy Road alignment if the applicant can provide for 3:1 side slopes outside the right-of-way and revise Lake Lucy Road to match with the intersection proposed in Menden Pond. In addition, Bob Generous August 31, 1994 Page 10 the plat should be revised to extend Jennifer Way to the north through Lot 9, Block 2 to provide access to the Mancino parcel. • • . . _. • . . . ! . . . . . .- . - -• - - . This leaves development flexibility to the Mancino parcel and still allows both parcels (Brenden Pond and Ryan) to develop. Staff believes it is an appropriate way to develop the westerly one- third of the Ryan development by accessing from Mancinos. Due to steep grades, we believe that this site should be accessed from the north to retain its topographic features. If the Mancino parcel was the first to be developed, we would recommend that the Mancinos provide a street access to the south for development of this area due to the steep grades. Similarly, staff has required the Ryans to provide access to the Carlson parcel (south of Jennifer Way) due to the isolated parcel of land (surrounded by wetland). We feel that it is in the best interest of the City and property owners to make a development proposal which utilizes the existing topography. In RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- • ' ! __ _ • • ! ' . _ ! •'_ 1. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events. Normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 2. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user assessment fee of $63,360 assuming 32 acres of developable land. Water quantity and quality fees may or may not be assessed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road improvement project assessment methodology. ._ - -• -- - . . . ' .. • . :. - • . .. -- .... . These fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 3. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 4. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. The existing house on Lot 14, Block 3 shall be connected to the new sanitary sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes Bob Generous August 31, 1994 Page 11 available. The well may be utilized as long as the well is on the lot and functional. Once the well fails or the property is sold the property owner shall connect to city water. 5. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The minimum easement width should be 20 feet. Maintenance access to the ponding areas shall be provided. Slopes shall not exceed 4:1 over the easement areas. 6. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. 7. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration. 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 10. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 11. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The proposed buffer strip shall be shown on the grading plan. 12. The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans, wetland delineation report, a map with wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland areas and a map of the soils. Bob Generous August 31, 1994 Page 12 13. The existing home shall change its address to be compatible with the City's addressing system once the street has been constructed adjacent the house. 14. The grading plan shall be revised as follows: to 1) provide for 2%boulevards and 3:1 side slopes adjacent to all streets in accordance to the City's typical street standards; 2) berming shall be prohibited from all street right-of-ways; 3) the proposed pond between Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay shall be combined/relocated to the west of Gwendolen Court; 4) grading in the rearyards of Lots 4 through 8, Block 2 shall be revised to drain rear to front; 5) an interim sediment pond shall be provided on Lot 12, Block 3 until Lots 1 through 12, Block 3 are fully revegetated; 6) storm ponds shall be designed and constructed with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL) for the first one foot (depth) of water and then 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 slopes overall. 15. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet State-Aid standards. The - - .. . . -. .. -- - _. _. • ... 16. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon utilities being extended from Brenden Pond unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for review and approval. 17. Lake Lucy Road shall be realigned southerly to be compatible with the intersection proposed in Brenden Pond (Lake Lucy Road and Pondview Court). 18. Right-of-way for Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay shall be increased to 60 feet. 19. The applicant shall provide potential street access and utility service to the Mancino parcel by extending Jennifer Way north of Lake Lucy Road through Lot 9, Block 2. 20. Direct driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road shall be prohibited. A private driveway shall be required to access Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 2 in accordance to the City's private driveway ordinance. ktm/jms Attachments: 1 Option A. 2. Option B. 3. Option C. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g'teng'dianelplanninglshemrock pc1 1 ID r Wil il tt g p'� 0 moi;n i i p : AZ I- 0 v §G6 J1 0 am 1 .*:m vi A (07 z A 0..m n t.../ 4 �.I. r KR!_ 1 s 9C 00 111.-= V �; s•a ;!j ` ` ,� • 711r, 111111! f 'O`O` }! z i of • a. ...,\! 1 I1. , i i € § R ;46 : #_ , r t mac. C .•7 . t !I ‘ss! i ..4 7/ 7 i 1 (11) I#� ....— 3 i'k, ; _,,„ PdI i.....,,;.; . i. 4.11 b . , .0 ,k I 5-1 _ eiti. 411 t ( / .. .. i 4.6 si‘„,.. ILI —i a r;ri , _ __!illa i a --j1Ov . __..... ti :„.„..„, , _, _&,„...„,,,,,,, ' • • �. ny — Gl WINS _ _ , a : > a Oi� , . Al gg " � • Di: .. .. s. a " . l 3 . 4fr 0 : . tv - ` - 4t1.---41fic •?, * 04' .__. ic -smi ir A . - A ill Illtia ( ,,m, ii 990 •-_-_-..7:17..;1.-_,:._-..— _y , , it 00 .., Z "..*"...1 . . ."34,._. . _ '- ...' 8 41 4-"' 'is . , •0 --- CI _ _ ,..---",-1,1:1-,-_7,.:-7---,..--- 066 _- _1 •ante . • ' TP SSW E AINR: f r • • .i .i Iij e is1 _ CITY O F PC DATE: 8/17/94 -� C1-1,11.111-1ASSZN�� ICC DATE: 9/26/94 CASE #: 94-10 SUB 94-5 REZ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 25.85 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 25.85 Acres into 21 19 single family lots and Z wee four outlots, Brenden Pond 4 0 A 10% street grade variance for Pondview Court .--I LOCATION: Southwest 1/4 of Section 3, T116, R23, north of Hwy. 5, east of Hwy. 41, and LL south of Minnetonka Middle School West CL 4 APPLICANT: David Gestach-Leland Paulson Construction 200 North Chestnut Street Chaska_ MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District ACREAGE: 25.85 acres DENSITY: 4-2 1.3 Units per Acre-Gross 1.93 1.75 Units per Acre-Net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - OI, Office Institutional, Minnetonka Middle School West S - RR, Rural Residential District 5CE - RR, Rural Residential District d W - RR, Rural Residential District WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W I"' PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The majority of the site is being farmed. An Ag/Urban wetland is —, located along the west side of the property and a Natural wetland is located at the southeast corner V) of the site. Mature trees are concentrated within the southeast corner and easterly edge of the wetland. The site generally slopes from southwest to northeast and from northeast to southwest, with the low points in the center of the site. I.I.I . ► 1 ' . ►' : - .• • s •. - .• . 0- , 'i Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 2 On August 17, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled this application and directed staff to address the following issues: * A tree inventory and landscaping plan be submitted to the city for review and approval. * Evaluation of the environmental resources on the site and the adjacent parcel to the east. * Resolve the access issue to the Mancino's property and investigate if there is a feasible way of providing a street to serve their property. The applicants (David Gestach & Lee Paulson)and their engineer (Alan Larson,Engelhardt & Associates),owners of the property located east of the site (Sam and Nancy Mancino) and their surveyor (Ted Kemna), and City Engineering and Planning staff met on August 26, 1994. After walking the site and evaluating access option, all parties reached an agreement. We must point out that the applicants have been very cooperative and worked closely with staff to incorporate the requested changes. This staff report has been edited to reflect those changes. New information will appear in bold and impertinent information is struck out. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 25.85 acres into 21 19 single family lots. The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RSF, Residential Single Family. The average lot size is 22,547 24,956 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.2 units per acre. The site is located north of Hwy. 5, east of Hwy. 41, and south of Minnetonka Middle School West. Access to the subdivision will be provided via an extension of Lake Lucy Road which will connect this subdivision with Highway 41 to the west and Galpin Boulevard to the east (through the Ryan property). A cul-de-sac, Pondview Court, extends north to service all of the proposed lots with the exception of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance . . . - -• - -: e, - - : ,;nes within the pent. There are-twee four outlots shown on the plat. Outlot A B is reserved for further subdivision and future development. Outlot-13 C contains a Natural Wetland, and Outlot G D is a remnant lot created as a result of the alignment of Lake Lucy Road. Outlot A will contain a private street to provide access and utility service to the Mancino property located to the east of the subject site. Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 3 The site has a dense concentration of mature trees along the easterly edge of the wetland and northwest of Outlot $ C. The majority of the trees, northwest of Outlot-B- C will be lost as a result of the extension of Lake Lucy Road, however, the applicant will be required to replace them. The proposed woodland management plan submitted by the applicant addresses some of the reforestation issues. Additional trees will be required to meet ordinance guidelines. - - . : . ..- -- -: ' ! • : •. -- : ;: . - . : • . . - _ . site. All those trees must be replaced as fetteiredly the landsceping, and tree preservation Y. Leval, A 30 foot wide preservation easement located to the east of Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, Block 1, and Lots 1, and 2, Block 2 is proposed over the wooded area d. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently preserving the trees. In reviewing this plat, staff also had to look at access to the Mancino parcel to the east. While the Mancinos are not ready to develop or subdivide at this time, staff has asked them to give consideration as to how their property will be developed. Staff wanted to ensure that the Mancinos are not land locked. . .. - -- - - .. . . - . : . .. :, and Gestach properties. A private road will be constructed on Outlot A to service the Mancino property as reflected in the revised plans submitted August 30, 1994. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. BACKGROUND Gestach/Paulson has been working with staff to develop this subdivision for a couple of years. The major stumbling block has been the location of Lake Lucy Road. A public hearing was held at the City Council's regular meeting on April 12, 1993 concerning the feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard. This project was initially petitioned by two property owners, the Westside Baptist Church and property owned by Gestach/Paulson/Klingelhutz, amassing nearly 36 acres immediately east of Trunk Highway 41. During the process of preparing the feasibility, it became apparent that the Westside Baptist Church no longer had an interest in this project and had subsequently rescinded their project petition. Since the road needed to cross through the church property in order to serve the Gestach/Paulson/Klingelhutz property, the church's lack of participation for all intents and purposes had temporarily stalled the project. As such, the public hearing was tabled indefinitely. The renewed impetus for the Lake Lucy Road extension is the petition/support of this project by the two immediately affected property owners (Jerome Carlson located adjacent to Trunk Highway 41 and the Gestach/Paulson proposed development located immediately east of the Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 4 referenced Carlson property). The project consists of the construction of Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41 east approximately 1400 lineal feet as an urban roadway with concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer and trail and the installation of watermain and sanitary sewer. The proposed road alignment for this project has been revised from the two alternative alignments presented in the original feasibility study. The currently proposed alignment would follow more closely with the existing Lake Ann Interceptor easement through the Carlson property and would reduce grading and tree loss impacts from that of the previously presented alignment options. The proposed plat is consistent with the Lake Lucy Road street and utility project. REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family. The area to the east, west and south is zoned Rural Residential and is guided for Residential Low Density. The area to the north of the site is zoned Office Institutional and contains the Minnetonka Middle School West. The 2000 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.93 13 units per acre and 4,2 1.75 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out. This area is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 25.85 acre site into 21 19 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.2 1.3 units per acre gross, and 1.93 1.75 units per acre net after removing the roads and wetlands. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 22,547 24,956 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance - - .:. _. !, . - - . . . - _ _ Y. _ . .' . . .'. - . --'-'•• . •• . •! .. - . .. _.. .- .. ' _. - - .. . - - . - lines within the tet. There are-wee four outlots shown on the plat. Outlot A B is reserved for further subdivision and future development. Outlot-13- C contains a Natural Wetland, and Outlot . D is a remnant lot created as a result of the alignment of Lake Lucy Road. Outlot A will contain a private street to provide access to the Mancino property located to the east of the subject site. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 5 WETLANDS According to the wetland delineation performed by Westwood, two wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows: West Basin is an ag/urban wetland located along the central portion of the western boundary of the site. About half of the wetland extends off-site to the west; approximately 5.17 acres of wetland is on site. This wetland is DNR protected water, 10-132W. An ordinary high water mark has not been established for this wetland. Southeast Basin is a large natural wetland located in the southeastern corner of the property. The majority of the wetland is off-site with only approximately 2.03 acres on-site. It does not appear that the wetland will be impacted as a result of construction of Lake Lucy Road, however, it is very important that type III erosion control be constructed around the wetland and well maintained during construction. There will be some fairly steep side slopes (3:1) adjacent to the wetland. A potential erosion problem exists; therefore, the side slope should be revegetated as soon as possible after site grading with erosion control blanket. This area will be constructed under the City's improvement project and will be addressed on the construction plans. Regulations The City administers the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), however it does not appear that a wetland replacement plan will be necessary for this project. Staff would like the following information as part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils. 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. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 6 projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-developed and post-developed conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre-developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. Water quality ponds will not be required since this development will connect to the City's construction project. the applicant will be assessed for storm drainage improvements in lieu of SWMP fees. Storm water discharge to the aglurban wetland will be pretreated in a sedimentation pond to be constructed with the City's project. Detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. ._. _ . • - _. . . . : •: : - The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre- developed and post-developed conditions. Water Quality The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. This fee is not applicable since the applicant will be assessed for the Lake Lucy Road storm drainage improvements. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat. Water Quantity The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city- wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with the SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. An analysis of the SWMP fees and Lake Lucy Road assessments will be performed in conjunction with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 7 DRAINAGE The applicant has petitioned the City to construct Lake Lucy Road. The City authorized preparation of a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). On June 13, 1994, the City Council approved the feasibility study and authorized preparation of construction plans and specifications for Phase I of the roadway improvements. Phase I will include extending Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41 to the intersection of proposed Pondview Court. The project includes construction of streets, sidewalk, utilities and storm drainage improvements. This development is dependent upon this project in order to develop. Without these improvements the plat is premature. Therefore, preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon City Project No. 92-12 being ordered and bid awarded. This development will be subject to assessment as a result of the City's improvement project. The east side of the development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed which is under the jurisdiction of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. The west side of the development is within the Lake Minnewashta Watershed which is under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. It appears the runoff from the site will drain into the ag/urban wetland. The ag/urban wetland will then drain into the natural wetland. The natural wetland drains to the east through a series of other wetlands before it eventually discharges into Lake Lucy. Since the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed boundaries are being altered both watershed districts and the Board of Water and Soil Resources should be informed of the alterations proposed to the watershed boundaries. The storm water runoff from the front yard areas and street will be conveyed via storm sewers into a sediment basin that the City's improvement project will be constructing prior to discharging into the ag/urban wetland. A sediment basin will be designed with the City's project to hold back sand and silt running off from the proposed development and the Lake Lucy roadway before it enters the ag/urban wetland. Staff believes that a sediment trap is sufficient water quality treatment in this situation; however, the inlet from the sediment trap to the ag/urban wetland should be located well away from the outlet that discharges the ag/urban wetland into the natural wetland. This will be modified on the City's construction plans. GRADING (Please refer to sheet 2 of 7 for the grading plan. Grades shown on sheet 6 of 7 are inapplicable). The site contains a significant grade variety of elevation changes and vegetation. There are steep slopes in the northwesterly and southerly portion of the site. The proposed plans show extensive grading to develop the site for house pads and streets. A development plan should be prepared or included with the grading plan indicating the type of dwelling to be built on each lot. There Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 8 are some very steep slopes in the northwest corner of the development that will be re-graded Staff has met with the applicant and Mancino's in the field to determine access and utility service location. Outlot 'A' has been set aside for a private driveway to service up to four home sites on the Mancino parcel lying west of the ravine. Utility service will also be extended to the east end of Outlot A. Y- - _- Staff reviewed another potential location for this access road at the southwest corner of the property (Outlot-4 B); however, the slopes leading into the Mancino property here are very steep and resulting road grades would be greater than 10 percent. The extension of Outlot A appears to be the best alternative since it would eliminate steep road grades and allow some natural resource continuity between the wooded area on Mancino's property and the ravine which extends from the wooded area south to the wetland. . . . - . - • - • . ••- . We believe this alignment will minimize impact to the surrounding property and still provide a feasible access and utility service for the west side of the Mancino parcel. According to the City's SWMP, a water quality pond is proposed adjacent to the natural wetland (Outlot C). The applicant will be required to dedicate a portion of Outlot C as a drainage and utility easement. EROSION CONTROL The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the natural wetland. The steep slopes may also require some form of terraced erosion control fencing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process. UTILI HES With the construction of Lake Lucy Road, sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended to serve this development. Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide the Mancino parcel with street access and utility service. , Staff recommends that the applicant be required to extend utilities along with access for future extension into the Mancino parcel through Outlot A. The utility plans are relatively straightforward. Water service will ffifty be wed extended from . - ' . . . - .• - - - - -- • - €rem Lake Lucy Road . .- • • . • ... - - • - . . .. •• ;: . - -- - -t - - A detailed analysis of the construction plans will be performed in conjunction with the final plat submittal process. Fire hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. All Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 9 utility construction shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the utilities and street improvements will be required for submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. In conjunction with the final platting process, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The City will also be looking to acquire land for construction of a well site on Outlot C. STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road extending from Trunk Highway 41. This segment of roadway will be built under the City's Improvement Project No. 92-12. Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use Plan. It is also part of the City's Municipal State-Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision ordinance, direct driveway access onto a collector street should be restricted or controlled whenever feasible. Due to topographic constraints, staff believe there is no other feasible access point available to these three lots. Staff is comfortable with Lots 1, 2 and 3 having driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff is also recommending that development of Outlot 13-4, depending on the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road, may be required to utilize the interior street (Pond View Court). The extension of Lake Lucy Road east of Pond View Court has not been finalized. The City has prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road to Galpin Boulevard. There are two other parcels of land that are directly impacted by the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The first parcel (Ryan) is located just east of this development. The other parcel (Mancino) is located northeast of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property owners several options for access to the Mancino parcel. Staff has also met with the Ryas and discussed two potential alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact the development potential for the Ryan parcel. There is no clear-cut alignment that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation. The Ryas have submitted a preliminary plat for review. They have utilized the northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and finds fitifner-eus—pFebleffis, from a design standpoint, Lake Lucy Road will have to be revised slightly to align with this development. .• . -- . •• • . -. - • . -. •. -- - - Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through the Ryan parcel which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very steep slopes. The resulting impact requires short, steep cul-de-sacs as well as tuck-under type homes versus walkouts overlooking the wetlands, or delay development of the westerly 1/3 of the Ryan parcel until the Mancino parcel develops in an effort to maintain the natural terrain. Access to the Mancino parcel through this development has been resolved. Since the applicant is not platting Outlot B, this gives sufficient room for modifying Lake Lucy Road alignment to match with the Ryan parcel.. - ... • . .• _ . = . . - - . - - . . - - Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 10 . _ - - - _. -- - _ - - . _ ... - - •: :, . . . ..• . • . . Staff still supports the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road. . . • . . . .. . . . This alignment follows the City's feasibility study which minimizes grading and tree loss - - - •- - - . - _. • _. . - - - - - - - - •: - - - .. - - -. _. _ - .. - plat for future access. This access is much less severe in grade, involves some tree loss {HA- ' Option A Gen* Y. �.. - • _._ • - ..- - - - - • ' . ._ Y' . . . . . - - - • -.. - - . - - - , - _ ... - -. • _._ - - of the ridge. - • • -- • ' _ . ' - - • . ' - - _ . . . . - • . ' . . . .._ .. . - . . • . _ . _ _ �.. - -. • .. _ access to the Mancino parcel from the extension of Pond View Court. . •- • • • Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 11 Option C -s • - - - - -. - - . . - - - -- - . - . . ; . --- ' - - - -- Conclusion- - - -- - - -- .._. . . : . : : . . - - _ . • .. . . - . . .. - - ' ' • -- --- - - - - . - - -- . - - - _ . . - - - • . - e . . , - - - • - -- _ . . . . _ . • . .- . _ . .. . . • . - - - . - - - Carlson parcel (south -of Jennifer Way) due to the iseleted parcel of land (surrounded by wetland). We feel that it is in the best interest of the City and property owners to make a The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 80-foot wide right-of-way for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the development. The plans also propose a 60-foot wide right-of-way and construction of the City's standard roadway section for Pond View Court. This typical section will allow for sufficient room for sidewalk if so desired to access Lake Lucy Road to the school immediately north of the development. Street grades range from 0.5% to 10% .71k,which is over the City's maximum grade allowed. Staff believes this grade is warranted in an effort to minimize grading and tree loss on the site. Staff is in support of granting a variance to the 10% street grade. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as part of the final plat submittal. S-heuld Access to the Mancino parcel will be considered- through Outlot A via a private street. the north end of Pond View Court, then the . .. - - - . -, - - - - - 8: -: - _.. . • .. aes; tea C„ rt Staff was directed by the Planning Commission to evaluate the environmental resources on the site and the adjacent parcel to the east (the Mancino property) before making a recommendation on the access issue. The westerly portion of the Mancino property is densely wooded with mature trees and contain a ravine. Building a street up to city standards through the Mancino property would not be feasible as it will remove a substantial number of trees. The only solution to preserving the trees and allowing some Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 12 development on the site is to access it via a private street. Current city ordinances allow a maximum number of 4 homes to be served via a private street. Staff has brought this issue to the attention of the Mancinos and they have indicated that they do not intend to have more than 4 homes on that portion of their property. PARK DEDICATION The Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as lying within the park service area of Herman Field Park and the Minnetonka Intermediate School campus. A trail is identified on the comprehensive trail plan, running east/west along the extension of Lake Lucy Road and will be constructed as a part of this future road project. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on August 9, 1994, and recommended the Planning Commission require a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of Pondview Court extending north to the school property be incorporated into the construction plans for Brenden Pond. The applicant is to construct this sidewalk and convey any and all easements required by its alignment to the city. The Park and Recreation Commission also recommended full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 20,518 201.38' 125' 30'/50' 10' Lot 2 21,973 175.57' 153' 30'/50' 10' Lot 3 22,874 164.57' 145' 30'/50' 10' Lot 4 24,636 24,599 107.24' 175' 30'/50' 225' corner lot 10' Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 13 Lot 5 15,261 15,124 402.00 100.00' 155' 30'/50' 10' Lot 6 15,854 18,070 91.00' 95.00' 4831 191' 30'/50' 10' Lot 7 47,350 23,030 95' 230' 239' 30'/50' 10' Lot 8 207893 24,486 89.98' 95.00' 230' 253' 30'/50' 10' Lot 9 20,726 29,799 87.41' on curve 210' 251' 30'/50' 10' Lot 10 22,598 37,238 85.8-1' on curve 200' 270' 30'/50' 10' Lot 11 2-5,344 31,679 89.11' on curve 2S' 275' 30'/50' 10' Lot 12 2-1966 23,944 50:.86'- 100' 498 255' 30'/30' 10' Lot 13 22,987 34,419 802-55' on curve 210' 30'/30' 10' Lot 14 19,890 27,857 ;094' 60' on curve 430' 178' 30'/30' 10' Lot 15 28,795 24,448 62.83' 77' on curve 4701 212' 30'/30' 10' Lot 16 387403 24,097 74.94' 155' 238' 30'/30' 10' Lot 17 27,891 23,699 4281 108' 440' 267' 30'/30' 10' Block 2 Lot 44 1 26,462 21,760 248' 95' 233' 228' 30'/NA Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 14 10' Lot -1-9 2 23,661 24,544 .99' 139.73' ' 176'30'/30' 10' Lot 20 22,348 87.87' 225' 30'/30' 40' Lot 21 16,345 -86.47 165' 30'/30' 40' Outlot A 110,974 7,724 Oudot B 4€ 300 110,974 Outlot C 5,207 161,300 Outlot D 5,207 Wetland in Block 1 244,807 Lake Lucy Rd 71,667 Pondview Court 5.978-56 56,526 TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Tree Inventory Plan. revel. The site contains significant concentrations of mature trees along the west edge of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and easterly portion of Lots 1 and 2 of Blocker 2. Grading will only eet take place over portions of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 these concentrations, with the exception of 30 foot wide conservation easement located along the easterly edge of the site leaving those trees intact. " - -- -• - -- - -- - - -- _ - - - • - _ • =• - e • - - . The grading plan has been revised to eliminate any clear cutting of trees on outlot B. Unfortunately, a large number of trees will be lost due to the extension of Lake Lucy Road. Also, there i` another . - • - - . __ . . _. I .. . - - - - _- - . • ._ _- • - , •, .. . -- . • -- - _ -- Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 15 All of the vegetated areas that are being saved shall be preserved by a conservation easement. • - - • - • . -. . -• • - • :. . The Landscaping and Tree Preservation requirements state that a landscape buffer is required when a subdivision plat is contiguous with a collector street. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape materials consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or a tree preservation area. The plan must identify plant material locations along Lake Lucy Road as well as planting within each front yard. Appropriate financial security will be required. This plan should show the type and size of trees proposed to be planted as well as the location of berms along Lake Lucy Road. Y- - . • . ' . . . . . . • . . - .- .. . - A reforestation plan will attempt to replace all those trees being lost due to grading and road extension. The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to develop a reforestation plan to replace the tree removal. Staff believes that the Lake Lucy Road project will most likely include a streetscape plan similar to Minnewashta Parkway. The following constitutes our calculation of the required forestation and tree replacement: There is a 16% baseline canopy coverage (3.2 acre). Tree canopy within a designated wetland is excluded from calculation. The required post development canopy coverage is 25 % or a total of 5 acres of tree canopy. To meet the minimum canopy coverage requirements, the developer would need to develop a forestation plan for 1.8 acres (5.0-3.2) which would require the planting of 72 trees. (1.8 x 40). In addition, because the developer is removing canopy coverage that is required to meet their minimum canopy coverage, they must replace the removed canopy area at a rate of 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed. Since the applicant did not provide these calculations, staff has estimated that the removed canopy coverage area is approximately 102,500 square feet. The replacement planting is then calculated at 123,000 square feet (102,000 x 1.2). The number of trees required for replacement planting is calculated at 113 trees (123,000/1089). The total tree planting requirement as part of the development for forestation and tree replacement is 185 trees. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: REZONING "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning #94-5 for property zoned RR to RSF for Brenden Pond as shown on the plans dated August 30, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 16 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the property. 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #94-10." PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brenden Pond for 19 single family lots and 3 4 outlots with a variance to the street grade (10%) on Pondview Court as shown on the plans dated July 19, 1994 received August 30, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 2. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. I- - .. - . . . - . . .. . . - - - . _. . . ' - The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. Tree conservation areas are shown on attachment #1. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of these easements. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. A total number of 185 trees will be required for the forestation and tree replacement on this site. Financial guarantees acceptable to the city will be required to ensure compliance. 3. Lots 8, 9, 10, aad 11, Boeck 1, sell be custom graded vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of—the tree preservation easements prior to grading. 4. Building Department conditions: a. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 17 b. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with final plat conditions of approval. 6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 7. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100-year high water level. All storm water ponds shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes. 8. 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. 9. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from Lake Lucy Road with the exception of lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1. 10. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. b. Pending review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable. c. Radius of cul-de-sacs shall be 45 feet, not 42 feet. d. Fire hydrants shall be located a maximum of 300 feet apart. 11. Park and Recreation conditions: a. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of Pondview Court extending north to the school property shall be incorporated into the construction plans for Brenden Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 18 Pond. The applicant is to construct this sidewalk and convey any and all easements required by its alignment to the city. b. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 12. . : : ' - ' - . . _ . _ : ' • . - _ - . - •! _ . _. 8, 20, and 21, Block 1. 13. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user aasessuient fee of $35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The water quantity and quality fees may or may not are to be assessed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road improvement project assessment methodology. The water quantity fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. -- -- - - -- - - -- -- - - -- - - - --- --- - -- - -- - - - Same as number S. 14. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. . - . . - . .•. . . . -. . Same as number 5. 15. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 16. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review. . . • . . ... - ' _ - •• . --- . . ..- . Same as number 1. Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 19 17. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 18. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 19. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post-developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins/wetlands and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 20. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 3 feet above the 100 year high water level. Same as number 7. 25. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The __ - - •- . _ _:. - '. . - _ :_. .. . . _ . - _ Same as number 13. 26. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer requirements. Same as number 13. 21. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City ordering Improvement Project No. 92-12 and awarding a bid for the contract. in theme 22. Outlot A shall be conveyed to the City for access to the Mancino parcel. A private street shall be designed and constructed by the applicant in accordance to the City's private street ordinance over Outlot A. This private street shall serve a maximum Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 20 of 4 single family homes. Utility service (sanitary sewer and water) shall also be extended to the east line of Outlot A. 23. The applicant shall dedicate to the city at no cost the future right-of-way for Lake Lucy Road through Outlot B. 24. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Bill Weckman, Carver County dated August 9, 1994. 2. Letter from Ceil Strauss dated August 8, 1994. 3. Letter from Minnegasco dated August 1, 1994. 4. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated August 31 and August 4, 1994. 5. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 5, 1994, and 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo 6. Memo from Mark Littfin dated July 22, 1994. 7. Planning Commission minutes dated August 17, 1994. 8. Preliminary plat dated August 2, 1994. e- .,\,ti PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A� CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 1612)361-1010 ` 1 600 EAST 4TH STREET.BOX 6 FAX(612)361-1025 / CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 4'NESO` COUNTY OF CAQVLQ August 9, 1994 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer SUBJ: Brenden Pond, Gestach and Paulson Properties Planning Case: 94-10 SUB and 94-5 REZ We have reviewed the information submitted by your memo dated July 20, 1994 for the Brenden Pond development on TH 41. The proposed development will not impact the County Road system. The development occurring as part of this proposal does not abut the County Road right of way. We will not be submitting any comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper Contains Minimum 10%Post Consumer Waste STATE OF O`-{fLa DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO. August 8, 1994 Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff Planning Department City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: BRENDEN POND (GESTACH & PAULSON) , UNNAMED WETLAND 10-132W, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY (CITY #94-10 SUB & 94-5 REZ) Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: We have reviewed the site plans dated July, 1994 (received July 22 , 1994) for the above-referenced proposal (SW1/4 , Section 3 , T116N- R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. Public water wetland 10-132W, is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross-section of protected waters or wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of DNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit. No official OHW has been established for wetland 10-132W. Please contact this office if there is any question about whether proposed activities will be within protected water wetland 10-132W and we can make arrangements to estimate or officially determine, if necessary, the OHW. 2 . The city of Chanhassen's Surface Water Management Plan shows an outlet for wetland 10-132W (city basin LM-P1. 3) that would go under Highway 41. Please note that a DNR Protected Waters permit would be required for the outlet (and the city or watershed district should be the applicant) . Also note that this basin is currently part of the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, but would drain into the Minnehaha Creek Watershed if the proposed outlet is installed. Therefore, a change in official watershed district boundaries may be necessary. The city should consult with the involved watershed districts and the Board of Water and Soil Resources on this matter. 3 . It appears that the stormwater is proposed to be routed directly to wetland 10-132W. Stormwater sedimentation/ treatment ponds, or other appropriate stormwater treatment features, should be included in the plan. I understand that AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ms. Al-Jaff August 8, 1994 Page 2 the city has classified this basin as an urban basin and is considering requirement of primary/sediment treatment versus nutrient treatment. If only sediment treatment is required, a pond/basin should still be used rather than sump catch basins (or other similar facilities) , which are ineffective unless they receive a high level of maintenance. 4 . There should be some type of dedicated easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the DNR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the City of Chanhassen, the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed (or the Minnehaha Creek Watershed) have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 5. DNR public water wetland unnamed 10-132W should be labelled as such in future plans or plats and the OHW, if available, should be noted. 6 . There may be wetlands on the site that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by the city in accordance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. 7 . The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan and Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is needed. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. Construction activities which disturb five acres of land, or more, are required to apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 612/296-7203) . Ms. Al-Jaff August 8, 1994 Page 3 d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have questions. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS/MM/cs c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer Minnehaha Creek WSD, Ellen Sones U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann Carver SWCD, Paul Neumann Minnegasco R t: 7:A A Division of Arida,Inc- 1-;912 August 1, 1994 Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff Planner I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: 94-10 SUB and 94-5 REZ Brenden Pond Gestach and Paulson Construction Dear Ms . Al-Jaff: Enclosed are the prints for this project with the location of Minnegasco' s natural gas mains indicated in red. Individual services are not shown. Natural gas service is available to this development from the main shown. No addition work is anticipated at this time unless requested by a developer/builder/owner. The developer/builder should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco' s Residential Energy Services, 525-7607 or 342-5123, to make application for natural gas service. Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal . Sincerely, Richard J. Pi .n, P.E. Senior Design Engineer Engineering Services 612-342-5426 cc: Mary Palkovich Terry Jencks 700 West Linden Avenue P.O.Box 1165 Minneapolis,MN 55440-1165 CITY OF CHANI1ASSEN 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: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 1 DATE: August 31 , 1994 SUBJ: Updated Preliminary Plat Review for Brenden Pond, File No. 94-17 Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings received "August, July 1994" and prepared by Engelhardt Associates, Inc. we offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS According to the wetland delineation performed by Westwood two wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows: West Basin is an ag/urban wetland located along the central portion of the western boundary of the site. About half of the wetland extends off-site to the west; approximately 5.17 acres of wetland is on site. This wetland is DNR protected water, 10-132W. An ordinary high water mark has not been established for this wetland. Southeast Basin is a large natural wetland located in the southeaster corner of the property. The majority of the wetland is off-site with only approximately 2.03 acres on-site. It does not appear that the wetland will be impacted as a result of construction of Lake Lucy Road, however, it is very important that type III erosion control be constructed around the wetland and well maintained during construction. There will be some fairly steep side slopes (3:1) adjacent to the wetland. A potential erosion problem exists; therefore, the side slope should be revegetated as soon as possible after site grading with erosion control blanket. This area will be constructed under the City's improvement project and will be addressed on the construction plans. Regulations The City administers the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), however it does not appear that a wetland replacement plan will be necessary for this project. Staff would like the following Sharmin Al-Jaff August 31, 1994 Page 2 information as part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils. 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. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-developed and post-developed conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre-developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. Water quality ponds will not be required since this development will connect to the City's construction project. the applicant will be assessed for storm drainage improvements in lieu of SWMP fees. Storm water discharge to the ag/urban wetland will be pretreated in a sedimentation pond to be constructed with the City's project. Detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. Staff-believes . - - - - . • - . .' • .. . - - . . The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre- developed and post-developed conditions. Water Quality The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. This fee is not applicable since the applicant will be assessed for the Sharmin Al-Jaff August 31, 1994 Page 3 Lake Lucy Road storm drainage improvements. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat. Water Quantity The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city- wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate of$1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with the SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. An analysis of the SWMP fees and Lake Lucy Road assessments will be performed in conjunction with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. DRAINAGE The applicant has petitioned the City to construct Lake Lucy Road. The City authorized preparation of a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). On June 13, 1994, the City Council approved the feasibility study and authorized preparation of construction plans and specifications for Phase I of the roadway improvements. Phase I will include extending Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41 to the intersection of proposed Pond View Court. The project includes construction of streets, sidewalk, utilities and storm drainage improvements. This development is dependent upon this project in order to develop. Without these improvements the plat is premature. Therefore, preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon City Project No. 92-12 being ordered and bid awarded. This development will be subject to assessment as a result of the City's improvement project. The east side of the development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed which is under the jurisdiction of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. The west side of the development is within the Lake Minnewashta Watershed which is under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. It appears the runoff from the site will drain into the ag/urban wetland. The ag/urban wetland will then drain into the natural wetland. The natural wetland drains to the east through a series of other wetlands before it eventually discharges into Lake Lucy. Since the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed boundaries are being altered both watershed districts and the Board of Water and Soil Resources should be informed of the alterations proposed to the watershed boundaries. The storm water runoff from the front yard areas and street will be conveyed via storm sewers into a sediment basin that the City's improvement project will be constructing prior to discharging into the ag/urban wetland. A sediment basin will be designed with the City's project to hold back sand and silt running off from the proposed development and the Lake Lucy roadway before it Sharmin Al-Jaff August 31, 1994 Page 4 enters the ag/urban wetland. Staff believes that a sediment trap is sufficient water quality treatment in this situation; however, the inlet from the sediment trap to the ag/urban wetland should be located well away from the outlet that discharges the ag/urban wetland into the natural wetland. This will be modified on the City's construction plans. GRADING The site contains a significant grade variety of elevation changes and vegetation. There are steep slopes in the northwesterly and southerly portion of the site. The proposed plans show extensive grading to develop the site for house pads and streets. A development plan should be prepared or included with the grading plan indicating the type of dwelling to be built on each lot. There are some very steep slopes in the northwest corner of the development that will be re-graded under the proposed plan. Staff has met with the applicant and Mancino's in the field to determine access and utility service location. Outlot 'A' has been set aside for a private driveway to service up to four home sites on the Mancino parcel lying west of the ravine. Utility service will also be extended to the east end of Oudot A. Staff recommends that the street be extended to provide future access to the Mancino property at the north ast boundary. This will provide access which can be extended east through the Mancino property in the future. Staff reviewed another potential location for this access road at the southwest corner of the property (Outlot B A); however, the slopes leading into the Mancino property here are very steep and resulting road grades would be greater than 10 percent. The extension of Outlot A Pond View Court appears to be the best alternative since it would eliminate steep road grades and allow some natural resource continuity between the wooded area on Mancino's property and the ravine which extends from the wooded area south to the wetland. The road crossing the ravine would occur on the north end where the ravine begins. We believe this alignment will minimize impact to the surrounding property and still provide a feasible access and utility service for the west side of the Mancino parcel. According to the City's SW MP, a water quality pond is proposed adjacent to the natural wetland (Oudot C). The applicant will be required to dedicate a portion of Outlot C as a drainage and utility easement. EROSION CONTROL The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the natural wetland. The steep slopes may also require some form of terraced erosion control fencing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 31, 1994 Page 5 UTILITIES With the construction of Lake Lucy Road, sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended to serve this development. Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide the Mancino parcel with street access and utility service. - -• • .. - .. - :, Staff recommends that the applicant be required to extend utilities along with access for future extension into the Mancino parcel through Outlot A. The utility plans are relatively straightforward. Water service will may be extended connected from • • •_ . - • -Lake Lucy Road -_ _ - - ... - - - •. _ . - • - - - - - . - line. A detailed analysis of the construction plans will be performed in conjunction with the final plat submittal process. Fire hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. All utility construction shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the utilities and street improvements will be required for submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. In conjunction with the final platting process, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The City will also be looking to acquire land for construction of a well site on Oudot C. STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road extending from Trunk Highway 41. This segment of roadway will be built under the City's Improvement Project No. 92-12. Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use Plan. It is also part of the City's Municipal State-Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision ordinance, direct driveway access onto a collector street should be restricted or controlled whenever feasible. Due to topographic constraints, staff believe there is no other feasible access point available to these three lots. Staff is comfortable with Lots 1, 2 and 3 having driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff is also recommending that development of Outlot BA, depending on the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road, may be required to utilize the interior street (Pond View Court). The extension of Lake Lucy Road east of Pond View Court has not been finalized. The City has prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road to Galpin Boulevard. There are two other parcels of land that are directly impacted by the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The first parcel (Ryan) is located just east of this development. The other parcel (Mancino) is located northeast of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property owners several options for access to the Mancino parcel. Staff has also met with the Ryans and discussed two potential alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact the development potential for the Ryan parcel. There is no clear-cut alignment that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation. The Ryans have submitted a preliminary plat for review. They have utilized the northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and finds numerous problems, from a design standpoint, Lake Lucy Road that will have to be revised, Sharmin Al-Jaff August 31, 1994 Page 6 slightly to align with this development. thus reducing the potential number of lots. Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through the Ryan parcel which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very steep slopes. The resulting impact requires short, steep cul-de-sacs as well as tuck-under type homes versus walkouts overlooking the wetlands, or delay development of the westerly 1/3 of the Ryan parcel until the Mancino parcel develops in an effort to maintain the natural terrain. Access to the Mancino parcel through this development has been resolved. Since the applicant is not platting Oudot B, this gives sufficient room for modifying Lake Lucy Road alignment to match with the Ryan parcel.. Staff has put together three options that we see feasible for development of these three parcels(Brenden Pond, Mancinos and Ryans). Staff still supports the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road. - • - - - • - • . . . -- of 10% and involve additional tree loss and filling of the ravine. The other option to access future access. This access is much less severe in grade, involves some tree loss and filling of Option A Cons The Lake Lucy Road alignment is not conducive with the Ryan's proposed plat. This option . • - - - • - ridge. Opti: • : ' . _ • . . . . . .. . . - measures and storm ponding issues. Option BB—Coons Lake Lucy Road further north resulting in steep slopes along the north side of Lake Lucy Road Sharmin Al-Jaff August 31, 1994 Page 7 - . . - Conclusion . .., - - - - - .. .. : S. .: 0 . ! . . . : - .. • . . . S . - - - . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. • . . .. . • ..• . . . -.• 9 . . • .. , - - • . . . - . and storm ponding issues. The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 80-foot wide right-of-way for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the development. The plans also propose a 60-foot wide right-of-way and construction of the City's standard roadway section for Pond View Court. This typical section will allow for sufficient room for sidewalk if so desired to access Lake Lucy Road to the school immediately north of the development. Street grades range from 0.5% to 10%7% which is over the City's maximum grade allowed. Staff believes this grade is warranted in an effort to minimize grading and tree loss on the site. Staff is in support of granting a variance to the 10% street grade. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as part of the final plat submittal. Should Access to the Mancino parcel will be considered through Oudot A via a private driveway. - - . - " . . •: : - . . - --- - designated as Cour+ Sharmin Al-Jaff August 31, 1994 Page 8 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user asses+ eat fee of $35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The water quantity and quality fees may or may not ere-te be assessed dependent upon ' the Lake Lucy Road improvement project assessment methodology. The water quantity fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 2. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 3. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 4. A variance should be granted for the proposed 10% street grade on Pond View Court. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. 6. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 7. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review. 8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 9. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 10. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 31, 1994 Page 9 11. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post-developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins/wetlands and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 13. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 14. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile system in accordance with the construction plans. 15. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 16. The lowest exposed floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall should be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 17. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City ordering Improvement Project No. 92-12 and awarding a bid for the contract. 18. Outlot A shall be conveyed to the City for access to the Mancino parcel. A private driveway shall be designed and constructed by the applicant in accordance to the City's private driveway ordinance over Outlot A. Utility service (sanitary sewer and water) shall also be extended to the east line of Outlot A. 19. A development plan shall be prepared or included with the grading plan indicating the type of dwelling proposed on each lot including the lowest floor and garage floor elevation. ktm/jms Attachments: 1. Option A. 2. Option B. 3. Option C. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g:'entdi ane'p lanning\bre nden.pc I 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: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer ' kir DATE: August 4, 1994 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Brenden Pond, File No. 94-17 Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings received "July 19, 1994" and prepared by Engelhardt Associates, Inc. we offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS According to the wetland delineation performed by Westwood two wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows: West Basin is an ag/urban wetland located along the central portion of the western boundary of the site. About half of the wetland extends off-site to the west; approximately 5.17 acres of wetland is on site. This wetland is DNR protected water, 10-132W. An ordinary high water mark has not been established for this wetland. Southeast Basin is a large natural wetland located in the southeaster corner of the property. The majority of the wetland is off-site with only approximately 2.03 acres on-site. It does not appear that the wetland will be impacted as a result of construction of Lake Lucy Road, however, it is very important that type III erosion control be constructed around the wetland and well maintained during construction. There will be some fairly steep side slopes (3:1) adjacent to the wetland. A potential erosion problem exists; therefore, the side slope should be revegetated as soon as possible after site grading with erosion control blanket. This area will be constructed under the City's improvement project and will be addressed on the construction plans. Regulations The City administers the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), however it does not appear that a wetland replacement plan will be necessary for this project. Staff would like the following information as part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 2 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. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-developed and post-developed conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre-developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. Water quality ponds will not be required since this development will connect to the City's construction project. the applicant will be assessed for storm drainage improvements in lieu of SWMP fees. Storm water discharge to the ag/urban wetland will be pretreated in a sedimentation pond to be constructed with the City's project. Detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. Staff believes additional catch basins will be required along Pond View Court. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre- developed and post-developed conditions. Water Quality The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. This fee is not applicable since the applicant will be assessed for the Lake Lucy Road storm drainage improvements. Water Quantity The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city- wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 3 trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate of$1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with the SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. An analysis of the SWMP fees will be performed in conjunction with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. DRAINAGE The applicant has petitioned the City to construct Lake Lucy Road. The City authorized preparation of a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). On June 13, 1994, the City Council approved the feasibility study and authorized preparation of construction plans and specifications for Phase I of the roadway improvements. Phase I will include extending Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41 to the intersection of proposed Pond View Court. The project includes construction of streets, sidewalk, utilities and storm drainage improvements. This development is dependent upon this project in order to develop. Without these improvements the plat is premature. Therefore, preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon City Project No. 92-12 being ordered and bid awarded. This development will be subject to assessment as a result of the City's improvement project. The east side of the development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed which is under the jurisdiction of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. The west side of the development is within the Lake Minnewashta Watershed which is under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. It appears the runoff from the site will drain into the ag/urban wetland. The ag/urban wetland will then drain into the natural wetland. The natural wetland drains to the east through a series of other wetlands before it eventually discharges into Lake Lucy. Since the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed boundaries are being altered both watershed districts and the Board of Water and Soil Resources should be informed of the alterations proposed to the watershed boundaries. The storm water runoff from the front yard areas and street will be conveyed via storm sewers into a sediment basin that the City's improvement project will be constructing prior to discharging into the ag/urban wetland. A sediment basin will be designed with the City's project to hold back sand and silt running off from the proposed development and the Lake Lucy roadway before it enters the ag/urban wetland. Staff believes that a sediment trap is sufficient water quality treatment in this situation; however, the inlet from the sediment trap to the ag/urban wetland should be located well away from the outlet that discharges the ag/urban wetland into the natural wetland. This will be modified on the City's construction plans. GRADING Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 4 The site contains a significant grade variety of elevation changes and vegetation. There are steep slopes in the northwesterly and southerly portion of the site. The proposed plans show extensive grading to develop the site for house pads and streets. A development plan should be prepared or included with the grading plan indicating the type of dwelling to be built on each lot. There are some very steep slopes in the northwest corner of the development that will be re-graded under the proposed plan. Staff recommends that the street be extended to provide future access to the Mancino property at the northeast boundary. This will provide access which can be extended east through the Mancino property in the future. Staff reviewed another potential location for this access road at the southwest corner of the property (Outlot A); however, the slopes leading into the Mancino property here are very steep and resulting road grades would be greater than 10 percent. The extension of Pond View Court appears to be the best alternative since it would eliminate steep road grades and allow some natural resource continuity between the wooded area on Mancino's property and the ravine which extends from the wooded area south to the wetland. The road crossing the ravine would occur on the north end where the ravine begins. We believe this alignment will minimize impact to the surrounding property and still provide a feasible access. EROSION CONTROL The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type IH erosion control fencing will be required around the natural wetland. The steep slopes may also require some form of terraced erosion control fencing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process. UTILITIES With the construction of Lake Lucy Road, sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended to serve this development. Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide the Mancino parcel with street access and utility service. Whichever option is approved, staff recommends that the applicant be required to extend utilities along with access for future extension into the Mancino parcel. The utility plans are relatively straightforward. Water service may be connected from the existing line at their northerly property line or extension from Lake Lucy Road depending on the road extension. Staff may require the looping of this water line. A detailed analysis of the construction plans will be performed in conjunction with the final plat submittal process. Fire hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. All utility construction shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the utilities and street improvements will be required for submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. In conjunction with the final platting process, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 5 necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road extending from Trunk Highway 41. This segment of roadway will be built under the City's Improvement Project No. 92-12. Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use Plan. It is also part of the City's Municipal State-Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision ordinance, direct driveway access onto a collector street should be restricted or controlled whenever feasible. Due to topographic constraints, staff believe there is no other feasible access point available to these three lots. Staff is comfortable with Lots 1, 2 and 3 having driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff is also recommending that development of Outlot A, depending on the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road, may be required to utilize the interior street (Pond View Court). The extension of Lake Lucy Road east of Pond View Court has not been finalized. The City has prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road to Galpin Boulevard. There are two other parcels of land that are directly impacted by the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The first parcel (Ryan) is located just east of this development. The other parcel (Mancino) is located northeast of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property owners several options for access to the Mancino parcel. Staff has also met with the Ryans and discussed two potential alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact the development potential for the Ryan parcel. There is no clear-cut alignment that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation. The Ryans have submitted a preliminary plat for review. They have utilized the northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and finds numerous problems from a design standpoint that will have to be revised,thus reducing the potential number of lots. Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through the Ryan parcel which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very steep slopes. The resulting impact requires short, steep cul-de-sacs as well as tuck- under type homes versus walkouts overlooking the wetlands. Staff has put together three options that we see feasible for development of these three parcels (Brenden Pond,Mancinos and Ryans). Option A - Pros (See Attachment #11 This alignment follows the City's feasibility study which minimizes grading and tree loss adjacent to the wetlands through the Ryan parcel. This alignment also allows for two options to extend the street access to the Mancino's parcel and further develop Outlot A, Brenden Pond from interior street versus Lake Lucy Road. One access would be through the southerly portion of the Gestach development along the ravine, although street grades in this alignment may be in excess of 10% and involve additional tree loss and filling of the ravine. The other option to access Mancinos could be to extend Pond View Court to the northeasterly corner of the Gestach plat for future access. This access is much less severe in grade, involves some tree loss and filling of Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 6 a portion of the ravine and single-loaded lots. The northerly extension into Mancinos preserves the natural features of the southwest portion of Mancinos. Option A - Cons The Lake Lucy Road alignment is not conducive with the Ryan's proposed plat. This option leaves the Ryan parcel to develop with cul-de-sacs north of Lake Lucy Road which will involve steep grades and tuck-under type homes at the end of the cul-de-sacs. Another scenario would be to delay development of these northerly cul-de-sacs until the Mancinos develop from the north. Access to this area is more conducive from the north in order to situate homes at the top of the ridge. Option B - Pros (See Attachment #2) This alignment is conducive to the Ryan's preliminary plat although the Ryan's preliminary plat is anticipated to be revised due to inadequate intersection spacing along with wetland mitigation measures and storm ponding issues. Option B - Cons This roadway alignment does not follow the City's feasibility study. This alignment will push Lake Lucy Road further north resulting in steep slopes along the north side of Lake Lucy Road and mass grading which will significantly alter the existing terrain. This option will also limit access to the Mancino parcel from the extension of Pond View Court. Option C - Pros (See Attachment #3) This option follows the City's feasibility study, maintains the existing topographic features by minimizing grading and provides development flexibility to the Mancino parcel Option C - Cons This option delays development of the westerly portion of the Ryan's plat until access is provided through Mancino's property. Conclusion Staff has reviewed these options and concluded that Option C should be implemented. This leaves development flexibility to the Mancino parcel and allows both parcels (Brenden Pond and Ryan) to develop. Staff believes it is an appropriate way to develop the westerly one-third of the Ryan development. Due to steep grades, we believe that this site should be accessed from the north to retain its topographic features. If the Mancino parcel was the first to be developed, we would recommend that the Mancinos provide a street access to the south for development of this area due to the steep grades. Similarly, staff has required the Ryans to provide access to the Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 7 Carlson parcel (south of Jennifer Way) due to the isolated parcel of land(surrounded by wetland). We feel that it is in the best interest of the City and property owners to make a development proposal which utilizes the existing topography. In addition, the Ryan plat needs to go back and be substantially reworked due to intersection spacing, wetland setbacks, wetland mitigation areas and storm ponding issues. The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 80-foot wide right-of-way for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the development. The plans also propose a 60-foot wide right-of-way and construction of the City's standard roadway section for Pond View Court. This typical section will allow for sufficient room for sidewalk if so desired to access Lake Lucy Road to the school immediately north of the development. Street grades range from 0.5% to 7% which is the City's maximum grade allowed. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as part of the final plat submittal. Should access to the Mancino parcel be considered through the north end of Pond View Court, then the road should be extended to the northeast boundary of the plat where a temporary cul-de-sac should be built with a sign and a barricade indicating that this street will be extended in the future. Staff also recommends that if the road is extended to the northeast corner of the plat for future extension, the street name should be modified to either Pond View Lane other than designated as Court. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. Water quality fees are to be assessed in conjunction with the Lake Lucy Road improvement project. The water quantity fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 2. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 3. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 4. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The minimum easement width should be 20 feet. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 8 6. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 7. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review. 8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 9. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 10. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 11. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post-developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins/wetlands and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 13. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 14. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile system in accordance with the construction plans. 15. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 16. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 4, 1994 Page 9 17. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. 18. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. 19. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City ordering Improvement Project No. 92-12 and awarding a bid for the contract. 20. Should street access to the Mancino parcel be required, the applicant shall provide the right-of-way and street and utilities to the east boundary of the plat. A temporary cul-de- sac shall be built with a sign on the barricades indicating that this street will be extended in the future. ktm Attachments: 1. Option A. 2. Option B. 3. Option C. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g:kngldianelplanninglbrenden.pc v 4i s.... 144.,..,« 1 ` y3 \iy0 ' y l VV" Ifi- sh 14111111114 el x . ZT1..Ta2 IIll . PT m 2 1M.13 I? kV!I IP ir. 1 01! t t ! r y t t ! / \loop, t t tt P�� rr t t t i 1 t `)/ /� p y1 t , E �. a s tt t i t / r �I. 'c-Moe !e 0.•t t t t 1 I E. E ' ,t le- • . ,......- �� r .... K. " / n • ;o,4, 4 .9 7 7 7 ilattlib I:''''''' hy \_` ebb ._ �• ` !' IT c CO. R0. 117 11 r - - v Ii P1 E ..1 : 1 14 n x [" Ero s 1 2 "14. q n N i LI ' 411111%4414444:0.,.. fit; f� P7 \ 0.I;_Pc.• h � -..27+4:67, • <G �] tib 1,11 liprer. 1 RSg �` `�` ; Ir x `�` o` , , _ _,, ,, \,„„. \ Is': ''' x �l . 1 , , r , 11 I ,r E. E. F :Ai: ..,c" i y \: ,t 1. LE IIS < E 4,;t:g 0 , , „,,, ige PC.3.75 as A s t" V CO. RD. 117 r z Orn O II C �\ IIS \ y 1 w��lll i N _ In a 1 � i ti aa <0. 4 ./ 44 ((IC . 27+s7 ❑i • - IT. 06.13 1 I': _ S/1� \ 1 / \ 1 / E 013' , 4yg i i �� E Y \ 01 , /i \ \, ly„, ...:4 , , , ,y „ ,..._ ,, , ,;-;” - ......t , , \ \ ,, ,-,./. \ rah / \\ \\r, I \\\ F / i ir ., • It • _,.... _fe _ > . ......, .., r... L=$4 C,qi p/N '=1• 1 itB b - 41 - 7 o i CO. RD. 117 r -�- Xi > > i R1 O 1 r- C —� I :=l t ---i n X70 0 iuorettr P , CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 40t kr DATE: 08/05/94 SUBJECT: 94-10 SUB & 94-5 REZ (Brenden Pond, Gestach & Paulson) I was asked to review the plans for the proposed Brenden Pond Subdivision stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; JUL 19 , 1994; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " Analysis: Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments. The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process . I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations. In addition, a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes. Recommendations: Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 2 . Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3 . Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo q:\safety\sak\memos\play.\rrendg.n.s�1 CITY OF CHANIIASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN i UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 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. FLO o:RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates 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. SLS 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. SE R SEWO WO F/ L-o\ 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. rfr . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: July 22, 1994 SUBJ: Brendan Pond - Gestach and Paulson Construction Planning Case 94-10 Sub and 94-5 REZ I have reviewed the following single family residential project and have the following requirements: 1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 2. Pending review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable. 3. Radius of cul-de-sacs shall be 45 feet, not 42 feet. 4. Proposed street name is acceptable. g:\safety\mWenponcl.plr CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION David Gestach - Leland Paulson David Gestach - Leland Paulson APPLICANT: DBA : Gestach & Paulson nonstr. OWNER:DBA : Gestach & Paulson Constr . ADDRESS: 200 N Chestnut Street ADDRESS: 200 N Chestnut Street Chaska , MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 TELEPHONE (Day time) 448-3332 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading'Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. A Rezoning $500. 00 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs $150 . 00 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNARNVAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. X Subdivision $400 .00 TOTAL FEE $ 1 ,365 . 00 01 5 x 21 $315 . 00 A Ilst of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed: ie appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Brendon Pond LOCATION sw 1 /4 Section 3 , Township 116 , Range 23 LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attached PRESENT ZONING RR REQUESTED ZONING RFS PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION LDR 1 . 2 - 4 . 0 units per acre . REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Same as present REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To permit a sirgl e fami 1 y sill-vii vi si on 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 th riginal document returned to City Hall Records. .� , 7//e/ Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on I l i Com`u�9 Fee Paid I3((25_ Receipt No. S O (7/3 I 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. EXHIBIT A / Parcel A ' i That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 4 , Towninip 116 , .Range 23 , carer County , Minnesota , descr) bit4 as fol lows : ` Commencing at the northeast corner of said Northeast , Quarter of the Southeast 4uarter ; thence South 01 degreel "" 03 m1nut3S OS seconds East , Assumed Deering , along the . east line of said hortheast ' 0uarter of the SoutheaSt • Quarter a distance of 524 . 15 fret to the point of beginning of the land to be described ; thence North 89 degrees 01 Minutes 05 seconds West , a distance of 377 . 21 . feet to a lint hereinafter referred to as line A; thence southwesterly along said Line A a distance of 896 . 18 ' feet to the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the • Southeast Quarter ; thence easterly along said south line to the southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the . Southeast Quarter ; thence northerly along said east line to the• point of beginning . Line A is described as fo110*s : . . Beginning at a point on the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 685 . 37 feet westerly frog the southeast corner of said Northeast • Quarter of 1:>,e Southeast Quarter ; thence northeasterly , a distance qt 2064 , 94 feet . to a point on the east sine of said Soutfheast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter dtstalit, • 587 . 25 feet northerly from the Southeast ,corner of said Southeast 0yarter of the Northeast Quarter and said line there ter*irlating. Subject to a 60 foot permanent easement (or street and utility . purposes over anct across the above described parcel . The center ' . line of said easement is described as follow : . Commencing at the southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter . of the Southeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 116 , . Range 23 , Carver County , Minnesota ; thence North 01 degrees 03 aainutes 05 seconds West , assumed bearing , along the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 80.00 feet to the point . of beginning of the center line to be , described ; thence northwesterly a distance of 107 . 54 feet along a nontangentlal curve concave to the northeast . having a radius of 292 .08 feet and a central, angle of 21 degrees • . OS minutes 46 seconds , the chord of said curve having e bearing of ?forth 45 degrees 43 minutes 12 seconds West ; . thence North 35 degrees 10 minutes 24 seconds West , tangent to last curve a distance of 122 . 20 feet ; thence • • northwesterly a distance of 237 . 96 feet along a tangential . • curve concave to the southwest , having a radius of 381 . 13 feet and a central angle of 35 degrees 46 minutes 22 seconds ; thence North 70 degrees 56 minutes 46 seconds Nest a distance of 190.00 feet and said center line there terminating . , • _.r i ,_c r� 1 ka NOTICE OF PUBLIC 1I��,--.5...1.:,„4„...4,iir-: 11" _i�i 1 �l • -I._ s HEARING , .. 46 rertil..-.A� nr -nib i�.' . .� PLANNING COMMISSION i'w -r , OI :i..:: '' k• MEETING ; ' 0 le ER, Wednesday, AUGUST 17, 1994 _ 11111 a, ' at 7:30 p.m. . 1 ,�,, I: � ; City Hall Council Chambers ' 690 Coulter Drive I * RR L Project: Brenden Pond - ~fir ;F/ I ‘841 ;% Developer: Gestach and Paulson •_ Construction 1 /I- .,,, i t Location: North of Hwy. 5 and east of m Hwy. 41 Z.; _ oA I -: .icy Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing the rezoning of 25.85 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat to subdivide 25.85 acres into 21 single family lots and 3 outlots located in the SW 1/4 of Section 3, T 116, R 23, north of Hwy. 5 and east of Hwy. 41, Brenden Pond, Gestach and Paulson Construction. 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 August 3, 1994. The Park and Recreation CommissiO will review this item on Tuesday, August 9 , 1994 at 7 : 30 p . ri Jerome & Linda Carlson Sam and Nancy Mancino Edward & Mary Ryan 6950 Galpin Blvd. 6620 Galpin Blvd. 6730 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Daniel & Linda Murphy Minnetonka School Dist. 276 6651 Hazeltine Blvd. 261 School Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Brenden Pond August 17, 1994 Page 20 of 4 single family homes. Utility service (sanitary sewer and water) shall also be extended to the east line of Outlot A. 23. The applicant shall dedicate to the city at no cost the future right-of-way for Lake Lucy Road through Outlot B. 24. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property." ATTACHMENTS 1. - - _ - - _ ..- - .. _. :_ • . • . •• . Plan showing location of tree preservation easement. 2. Letter from Ceil Strauss dated August 8, 1994.Planning Commission minutes dated August 17, 1994. 3. Letter from Minnegasco dated August 1, 1994. Memo from Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle dated August 31, 1994. 4. • - - _ - e . - - - - . _. _. • . • . , '••. Staff report dated August 17, 1994. 5. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 5, 1994, and 1/29/93 Dwelling Type De-si-gfiatien-meme Revised plans received August 30, 1994. 6. Memo from Mark Littfin dated July 22, 1991. 7. Preliminary plat dated July 19, 1994. • C .1 .. ..„: . _. ._ 0 !•• !III ; ; t.• '; .- " • :,. ; : t: C5 ; e ki t i • : _ :a:7 :z;", . .Z.-L" 4 - i :. t "a Ili 1: i `•:4, ;;;Ill i IlgIn: . r: _ - . " 6i a .- . . g 1 , • - - t ; ;:a.. ••• ••;• •• •- IPts i !!- ‘ 1is si.g S 1.•...:: :.- :.i: :::'.!7•:::: •:77. •::: i1.7,t: 1. !?•! ! ateFj t•g-ti 1.- , ..... .ttig _1 ! ..r, .: tr.- .r. st. F:.' .- -Z!!' "J1 ).• ). - Cr CC l tz..- 1, .;. :-, ..,, " a: i 1'. i-1i.: i i 0 D W E E ..... 1... ri ..,.........:: I i , 1 I i . • I • z 1 , 1 . - \ , ',/ 1 _ ,_• I •— ....s. = I i'f---'llf...=;.e.-Z4-:; ":•::'=-.%-'-':7—..--:-.7f.,-7' '..; ,. • ; , . --....-t."'.-t-n., '':-,:•.••:---;• ••••-.--..-•• •. . ',... i s I f ' 1 - • ----..,...."--, ',•-c.• . . • ''''I 1 ' .. -.- • - litimproncopum.r............awre... % • ',. •-' 7 , ''.Y:-1 • - .'. . ...r) ..:. - ----, - --,...N..- - • •., . ,L;r):::,. . r*'-----.--"--- --=-:'-'`'..-- ,•'- '......'.1;';'''.1 ' : /10•\ • ' . u 2 ' '..\ s -5--„,,,,,, is•-. sge :- ......:,_qi>,,',..i! ,,,, ........,,,,.........- , 4 C ' -- 1"la 7----tTa' . \ • ' ..,.11 wi\--,,-----;_ --- , . :,-, s 4 c.. : .g : _ . ..! 41"41411..Z"...4,,L.,1111\il101t' .......TC; '..... - ...,)"S::?.i..7?:." "...•r"....:"'..c.: ;.._•-"•-, 0 %.":7s."-- -": ' 004 "‘.., - '.• ;..."..-..-.;; :;14::-:' .'".---...-• . Og • "0., . , 0 :. '''';::„. - ;-•...'..39°.‘" :...:Z::"1- 5 t 4 _ i .1 I - .- ,- ''!y---.17-,.•' -';"--.'3-11: ' . e--1- - • -•• •• .-;'....," '. •. , ;----.N' *.-::•'--:'''•"---'7.--- ••-• ' . s. VI ;A-‘----- - -:--; --....---:, - -• 1 fl . -----..--4. -..-_-- .-, 4 --r .. , . , •••••L___..i .. „ .. 1..... 0 - . Atait, r„ 1 , ......•-.... 4 TL- ri ....s.-::-.4:.,.._,•'-'-:- ..,, .-' ---• .-.,-, -\ i ..-. /_-- -•,, - :- :•--------;--,,:-..-.---," _. •,,0 •r ...o -7,-.;:::::::-: • •* ------._ .,..--....1, ./. .-',"-----s, ....'r,--f-. •••••:::•--4t`yi;"," --...;:•.;:,' _,---:,:gti•,' I • t • z $ 1 1 • ' -"..-X:'•":-Z,'•• I (" ._........"//' , . , I,\:‘-•.i.:::::::- .11 • ---.. ..Z.------''...,.... , ...::.... ...... ' '', . ',. \\1 s\:::,..':::..'•:,',,,i'..`";`•.:::, tli ----... "'"•...,...s.-----------......._ - ; • ; •'Z -----...."-Z.---... ---- 1 --,... ...... . -...;..... .... . • *-- .."'.... '- • ... a 0 . .1 . '. 0,, . o!! --... --,.-..._.-,....-., , ..., ..., . . ---„-_. ---_-,,z - .....• -,"..) ...._....... ..... ...„- i .....,. .__.. ••. _. .._. u • —,••_. z •.___. _..••• _. , c , _............._ ...._.:., -..-.........:_•.._ ....7.--7.- .., = • ...Z_I,‘ V 2 i II. Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING OF 25.85 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 25.85 ACRES INTO 21 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 3, T 116, R 23, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, BRENDEN POND, GESTACH AND PAULSON CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay David Gestach 8001 Acorn Lane Lee Paulson St. Bonifacius, MN Charles Stinson Deephaven Sam & Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Lake Road Peter Davis 6640 Galpin Lake Road Steve Buresh 6651 Galpin Blvd. Mancino: Planning Commissioners, I'd like to ask your approval, well just let you know that I'm going to step down from the Planning Commission at this point for the next two subdivisions that are coming in front of us, which is the Gestach-Paulson and the Ryan subdivisions because my land abuts their land. I have no financial interest in it but I do care about what happens so I'm going to remove myself, if that is fine with you. I talked to the City Attorney and kind of gone over this with him and will take my place as a private citizen and speak from that point of view. Scott: Good, thank you. In view of similar things on other parts of city government, that is definitely appreciated but does not surprise me. Thank you very much. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Harberts: What's the, excuse me. What's the comment by public safety on this issue. I'm trying to determine traffic flow and then stacking up here. Has staff looked at that? Hempel: One of the issues that's been brought up in the subdivision before us this evening that is being addressed, that the intersection spacing was. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Harberts: Pretty tight. Hempel: On their submittal, yes. We did point that out. It would be sufficient, we would revise the drawings and get additional space. Aanenson: I'd like to make a couple of comments as far as the options. What happened with this is we had the Gestach-Paulson party who wanted to go forward with the plat...Lake Lucy extension. Having done that, the Ryans put themselves in a position where they want to make sure the road that they're designing so they were ready to develop. Well that left us with the concern, is well now Mancino's is the last big missing link here and...we needed to make sure that access is provided for all properties. If the Mancino's to come in first we would say okay, you need to now provide access to Gestach-Paulson property and to the Ryan's property so all three parties have been very cooperative and we've spent a lot of time. It's been very difficult. We've kind of wrapped each...issue here as far as on this subdivision but they're all inter related. So we tried to make sure that each subdivision provides access to the adjoining property. It is a complex issue and we're not sure that we've got all the answers but we've tried to give some options that we think may work. There's some steep slopes on this property. Significant grade changes. Some natural features. Wetlands. Heavily wooded areas that we had to preserve. So it is complex but on this, the Gestach- Paulson property, we feel that however we get access to the Mancino's, there is one outlot that was platted on the Shivley addition. We're not sure but...would be to the north into the Mancino's so we're saying somewhere, either through the Ryan's subdivision or through the Gestach-Paulson subdivision, access needs to be given to the Mancino property. And that's why Commissioner Mancino removed herself from this because we're insisting that, whether they develop or if they would sell at some time in the future, somebody may want a public street through there. It may not be them but somehow we need to insure that there's access to that property and we're not land locking them so that's why this issues is before you with this subdivision. Scott: Just a question. Dave, with the alignment that we see here having access to the Mancino property from it looks like between Lots 20 and 21. Is that slope going to be, is it going to be, is it going to be about a 10% grade street or 15% or something like that? Hempel: Yeah. We looked at the topographic maps and it was extremely steep and then I believe the Mancino's had hired an engineer's office to do that as well. The grades were pretty significant for this swath. The street would be 100 feet or so in that area. We felt that that was not a feasible route for a city street to go. Scott: How do you feel about that? 6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Hempel: I would concur with that. I believe there are better alternatives to serve the Mancino parcel than bisecting it in that specific location. Scott: Would you, I mean just from looking at the maps that we are provided, does it appear, at least if we're looking at access from a westerly or southwesterly portion, would you agree that a connection between Lots 15 and 16 would topographically would yield both the access with a minimum amount of disturbance. I mean we don't, obviously we're trying to allow three different land owners to develop responsibly here but just dealing with the access from the westerly side, does it appear that going between Lots 15 and 16 is one of the better alternatives? Hempel: It is a better alternative than the southerly one, definitely. There are a couple drawbacks with that one as well. It would be a single loaded street. The school property is directly to the north. If the Mancino's develop, they may not even elect to use that option. They may loop the street back internally but at least we're providing an access with the utilities for future extension if so desired. Scott: Is there enough distance inbetween, now we need a quarter of a mile inbetween access to county road? What is the distance requirement? Hempel: In this subdivision here we're looking at 300 foot intersection spacing. The quarter mile refers to arterials like Trunk Highway 41. Scott: Okay. So there wouldn't be really anything that would preclude an access point to the Mancino property off of CR 117 that was somewhere in the middle of their, I know there's an existing driveway or something like that. Aanenson: And that would be one access. They would have direct access out onto Galpin. What we're saying is, if that was their only access point, let's say. Scott: Well yeah, you need. Aanenson: You would have a long dead end cul-de-sac and that's our...there needs to be another access point into the Ryan's piece which can...or up through the extension of the cul- de-sac from the Gestach-Paulson property. Scott: Okay, thank you. Al-Jaff: We are recommending approval of this subdivision with conditions outlined in the staff report. I have some minor changes to some. One...where the applicant needs to shift 7 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 some property lines to give some...adequate frontage. We also apologize for not forwarding the grading plans to you. If there are any questions regarding the grading, it's fairly simple and if there are any questions regarding the grading, we will answer them. With that we are recommending approval of the plan with conditions outlined in the staff report. Scott: Good, thank you. Any comments from commissioners? Hearing none, would the applicant or their representative wish to speak at this time? Yes sir, please state your name and your address please. David Gestach: David Gestach...we've been working with staff and the adjoining neighbors and like they say, it's been a long process. The first plat was submitted back in '85. That was in 2 1/2 acre lots and then...so it's been a long process so we're appreciate your approving the plan. It's basically the same layout as far as...but I guess that's all I have to say. Scott: Good. Any questions for the applicant? Good, thank you very much. David Gestach: And the other thing is, we are willing to provide a public street to the adjoining property owners. Scott: Okay. Good, thank you. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If anyone would wish to speak, please step forward. Give us your name and your address and tell us what's on your mind. Steve Buresh: My name is Steve Buresh. I'm more directly interested in the next item but this one does impact me somewhat since I do live on Galpin Blvd. I do have a few concerns with having lived in this area since 1987 in the Lake Lucy Highlands area. And in that the concerns are with the extension and then with the two additions that are planning to go in there. Currently we already, as someone who tried to get onto Highway 5 every morning, we currently have some extreme traffic problems out there in that area and I think that the Planning Commission should definitely take a look at the approvals of additions out there with the current status of Highway 5 and the fact that it's only 2 lane out there. And then also what, basically what impact this, all these homes going into this area are going to have. Scott: So you're concerned about your access from CR 117? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Steve Buresh: Well with the continuation of Lake Lucy Road there. I'm just about 4 houses down from the intersection of Lake Lucy, the current Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Blvd. The traffic that's going to end up being dumped onto Highway 5 to the south there and then also currently with the traffic that's going through that area right now in the rush hour period. So I just want to voice that we should take into consideration the current roads out in that area before we start expanding that at too large a rate. Scott: Okay. Dave, do you want to talk about the signalization project this fall? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The projection with the new elementary or middle school being constructed at the southeast corner of Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd, there will be construction and installation of a signalized intersection there to assist traffic in crossing Highway 5. This project and Lake Lucy Road extension will actually probably assist in some of the traffic. Right now you only have one access and that's going south with the extension of Lake Lucy Road through and provide a parallel street system to Highway 5, approximately a 1 1/2 mile north of Highway 5 to give another option to access TH 5 as well. But we are well aware of the traffic concerns at the intersection of Galpin and Trunk Highway 5. We're working on resolving that. Scott: Okay, so that signal will be installed yet this fall? Hempel: Early 1995. Scott: Okay, good. Does that answer your question? Steve Buresh: Yeah. That concludes my concerns. Scott: Good, thank you sir. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Sam Mancino: Hi, I'm Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd... Nancy Mancino: Mr. Chair, Nancy Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. Sam Mancino: First off we'd like to make it clear that we at this time have no intentions to develop. We are merely trying to do some long range planning. As the development around us sets in, it becomes clear that we have to apply certain prudent...how we deal with this property and allow for future contingencies. But at this time we don't have any definite plans but we have done some drawings and some planning to...decision. In the process we've talked to a lot of experts and engineers as well as staff...sketched this and we want to kind of walk through some of the issues as we see them. As it regards, the first part of this area, the 9 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Gestach-Paulson property to the west of us. Both this and as well the Ryan property but basically in terms of the topography for the last many years, working farms has been mostly clearing trees. The rolling topography remains but most of the trees have been cleared. During that same period of time in the 40's and 50's, our's was the old Slogan Tree Farm and planted a lot of specimen trees. The perimeter is pretty much lined by trees and within the site itself there are a lot of very mature trees. The western half is almost completely woods with a ravine system that runs through it. It makes future development of it possible but as we say somewhat problematic. We have to deal with and sensitive to it. Our house is located at about the gift point east and west, very close to the southern property line. Scott: If you could angle that. Could you angle that straight at us so the camera can pick it up from behind. There are cameras everywhere so be careful. Sam Mancino: By the way, this is Charles Stinson who is an architect who will be helping with the presentation and planning. There's a perimeter tree line that runs the entire east/west portion of the southern property line. Many of you who drive Galpin Boulevard probably are familiar with the large stand of arborvitae trees that line the western side of Galpin Road. There's a companion set of arborvitae through here. This entire section is woods and will be...through here, that will meander back into here. The terrain rises somewhat sharply here to a high point. The section near our house is probably at 1,050-1,060 feet and this property falls off down into the 960's I believe or 980's. It's about an 8 foot drop there so just to give you an overall sense of the terrain. Through here there are a lot of stands of Ponderosa pines... As a consequence, most of the people who have advised us about looking at our future development potential, both developers, architects, and engineers, have really come pretty much to the same conclusion which is whatever is happening here, we should probably consider that whatever development we do in our property will be somewhat different than the surrounding developments. Both in terms of the lot sizes, which following the landforms and the natural trees and vegetation...force themselves into a larger lot configuration than we see being platted around us. And so our long range thinking is that we will probably tend to develop that as an eye per se. More self contained and for that purpose we probably don't want to go through...adjoining properties. We've looked at a number of road options. We've been in some discussions with the Gestach-Paulson and Lee and have at one time looked at a variation that staff had talked about us with which had us accessing a road system through here, or a road system through here to serve this property. And perhaps Charles, maybe you can talk to us about some of the things that's happened as a result of that road system. Charles Stinson: Okay. My name is Charles Stinson. I'm an architect and I live at 4733 Eastwood Road in Minnetonka. I was approached by Nancy and Sam about taking a look at that property from an architectural standpoint, from a land planning standpoint and with the understanding that none of us wanted to do a maximum density residential area and we 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 wanted to keep and save the integrity of the area. I mean it's, with all the development going everywhere and with trees coming down and topography being ripped apart, we wanted to save one of the last stands of just specimen trees. I mean there's huge ponderosa pine. Across this area, I mean they're just gigantic. There's a big ravine and again there's 80 feet of drop going from here to down in this area. A lot of, there's pathways. Just a tremendous amount of trees that were planted 40-50 years ago and they go all the way across the property. This is totally dense. Kind of an unmolested nature in this area and they actually extend across the property line. So as we looked at it, the first thing we wanted to think about is, as we get back to the road, was just the idea of what can we do to preserve the integrity of this whole area without destroying it. And with the buffers we're thinking, at the beginning point is, creating a conservation zone that would occur on both our property and the properties abutting that would be desirable for everybody. You know perhaps 30 feet on each side or something but it would be far enough away that it wouldn't destroy the root system and that's one of the problems of so many of our developments is we go in and we say well, we're going to miss that tree with the road but by the time we do the grading, it gets wider than we think and dirt is you know knocking the oxygen out of the roots or the earth below the tree and we lose not only where we've just placed the trees but we've damaged everything around it that we'll lose it within a couple years. So trying to preserve their root system for everything around, for everybody in the neighborhood. So the idea, and in looking at this and the other, we can look at a concept here of the road but to give you a feeling of how they live there...have lived here for the last 10 or 12 years, is there's a private drive that comes in here. Drive through past the existing houses and reaches their house. In going in there, so you're just cutting right through the trees. It's just beautiful and very private. And when you arrive at the house, there's a giant meadow that's just going all the way across here that just goes on forever. There's also a large meadow behind their house and wildflower garden and then again the path system going through here is just, you really should take a look at the property. So in looking at it, I can address this road alternative but this is an example of what can happen I think just about anywhere where a large street comes through the site. But an engineer took a look at this and showed us the topography so I've just identified the area of the trees that certainly would be lost. And to see that, I mean it's a major displacement of that forest. And even if a natural road came in the top, it would do pretty much to the top what the same at the top did and all the ponderosas that seem to be here and here would be gone. And it's right next to the school field and it's exposed to the fence and all that. So it didn't seem like a real good alternative. So what we looked at. Sam Mancino: One other point. In addition to just knocking out the trees, because of the grades. We'd have to probably be either outside...109% grade in some cases which would require, I think that requires cutting down of 10, 12, 14 feet. Being able to fill with 16 feet up in places and being able to...across the whole ravine system so it seemed a bit of a violation to the topography. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Charles Stinson: So in a very cartoon form, this is what we were thinking of. We were thinking if it had to, and we were trying to come up with stages that would happen so the Mancino's could live in their house with the same integrity that they do now and the site. So we thought if, there are several components here but the ravine is so big and this is so dense and the topography is dropping down so much this way and that way, that the service is dipping down here. The best way to service this side, instead of bringing a road all the way through, would be having a two private drives off the west side of the property. One coming up here and would service this lot and this lot with each of them are good sized lots. I'm not sure of the exact acreage they would be. Sam Mancino: Probably 3/4 of an acre. Charles Stinson: Yeah. And another one coming up at the top. So it would just be a private drive and utilities so anything brought up would actually stop at the conservation line instead of wrecking the trees with these. If it doesn't happen and then at some point we would bring them in. And then the other access point would be in kind of a phase one but would be just coming off this existing road up here. That neighborhood and coming out with one cul-de- sac that would service here, here and here with a private drive going to that lot so we could work the homes built in a real...solution into the existing topography. And then leaving this all the same as it exists in the middle and just bringing in a short road and a cul-de-sac here. Just servicing these lots and keeping and using this, what would be the future road, as a private drive going to these lots temporarily and that would leave this whole meadow area as kind of a neutral open zone and that way we'd be leaving all the trees here, all the trees here. As much of this as we possibly can all in this except for where the road can come in. Mancino's would continue to use their existing private drive coming in and enjoy this area. At some point they retire and move out to the country or something, they could put this road all the way through. Connect the two of them and divide this up into lots and they would have a thru street here and a short cul-de-sac at this point. But from the lower portion, just bringing up utilities because the topography is...bring the utilities in here. Instead of having a thru road going through here, just have the utilities again stop at the bottom of the conservation line and I'm getting ahead of myself on this next site but it's all so integrated that it's doing the same thing here. That way we could bring it up. There is a short open space just by the arborvitaes here. Just on the back side of it that there isn't anything. So we could bring it right across there and if we need to go across, we could just kind of tunnel underneath the trees as opposed to making the big hole there. Sam Mancino: As it relates to the future possibility to hook up to Crestview. Some years ago we were requested to come to the city Planning and City Council meeting and we have a note from February 7, 1990 which made a City Council recommendation that at such time that this plat was filed, that it should be amended to provide the right-of-way for the 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 extension of Crestview Road...feet which basically though it doesn't lock in the exact location of the road, either positions it through here or possibly through here as long as there are some proper buildable lots. So I think that there is some notice in the record that that is a strong preference from staff at one point that recommended that we hook up at that time. Nancy Mancino: Yes, that is true. That when the Shivley's went in and did, I think it was a subdivision in here. That staff asked to make sure that we had access to the north. And the particular road alignment, where that access is. Whether it's between here and there, it was not drawn out. It was not stated exactly where it is. That there is an outlot that was created to have a roadway to go into the new property. But the exact location is between there and there...very comfortable that if it isn't right here, it could come over the cul-de-sac and also allow for our entering onto Galpin and there would be two accesses into the property so there would not be a long cul-de-sac. Sam Mancino: Just to reiterate my point. Though we've looked at the possibility of bringing in a flow through road, we do believe that we, long term will serve the community's needs to flow a road through into Crestview, which will create the circulation and the need. The other thing is that in terms of violating and ripping and tearing the property, there's two discreet private drives that would be built to city roadway standards would probably be...virtually no different than a road easement for full service roads. We don't feel that that's much of a burden on the adjoining property owners and we have offered to help in landscaping the road. The private drive going in there to be able to minimize the impact on that. And it also facilitates a better sequence of any future development, whether it's ourselves or someone else in the future because there are a number of options for sequencing in this area. Nancy Mancino: No, I don't think there is. As just stated, we would recommend that under the condition of the staff approval that number 28 be changed. Instead of having a street access off the, the applicant shall provide a right-of-way and street and utilities to the east boundary of the plat and tying in a temporary cul-de-sac which will be signed on barricades to indicate this street shall be extended in the future. That we do recommend that two accesses, two private drives between Lots 15 and 16 and Lots 19 and 20...be approved. Also there be a 30 foot conservation easement on the perimeter of the property that abuts the Gestach-Paulson property. Scott: And from looking at the staff report, you've discussed the private drive issue with the Gestachs and they've. Sam Mancino: We haven't. Unfortunately haven't been able to work out all of the details of that. As they said, they are, as I understand, they are more than willing to bring a road up at either of the locations. In some conversations we've had we have asked for two private 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 drives in lieu of a single road. At our latest discussions, I think that they would prefer a single road, full sized... Scott: Okay. Good. Nancy Mancino: Any questions? Sam Mancino: Any questions? Scott: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Lee Paulson: My name's Lee Paulson. I live in St. Bonifacius. Gestach-Paulson Construction. We've already gone over this private driveway stuff. My partner's talked to staff and talked to Mancino's and our experts tell us that it would...our development by having these private driveways running through our development. We don't want private driveways. We agree with staff with Option A or B. We just don't want these private driveways in there. I don't believe staff really wants these driveways. The way I understand it, want the driveways either and we'd like to see this moved on to, voted on and moved on to the next step. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Steve Buresh: I would like to comment. Scott: Well why don't we see if there's someone who would like to speak first. Or for the first time. Yes sir. Peter Davis: Yes, my name is Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Boulevard which is that kind of odd shaped, rectangle in the upper right corner. I just wanted to be recognized as an interested party. I haven't been involved with the other discussions and just to save my remarks for item 3. Scott: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Sir, if you can make your comments extremely brief then. Steve Buresh: Now that it's been outlined here and made a little bit clearer, since this does pretty much go along with the concerns that I have for the next item on the agenda too and that is the area that adjoins Galpin Boulevard there. This whole area along Galpin Boulevard is 2 1/2 acres and larger lots and I think that, I don't know exactly what the size of the lots that are being proposed for this section, for that small pan handle section there that runs up to 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Galpin Boulevard but I would strongly recommend that those lots be no smaller than an acre and a half in order to fit in with the aesthetics of the area. This area is also very, there's very much wildlife in the area. I've got deer that go across my property all the time. That's one of the reasons that I moved out there. I was raised on a farm so I like the open spaces and basically I feel that that probably is the reason a lot of people are out there with the large sized lots. So I guess I'd ask the Planning Commission to monitor what size those lots should be in the panhandle section there of that development to make sure that those are, would fit in with the area. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I guess I haven't, perhaps I...what is staff's reaction to the private drive issue? Hempel: Maybe I can address first from a utility standpoint. Depending on the length of a private driveway, it's typically 200 feet is probably maximum for the sewer and water extension for a single service. The...we looked at servicing additional lots and properties and trying to get a full sewer line or a water line in there... The other issue is basically...for a single lot or two lots for a private driveway that responsibility is with that homeowner to maintain that line. Whereby if it's a city street, it's obviously maintained by the city and so forth. With the roadway extension to the northeast corner of the property, it leaves the option for the Mancino's to either explore a full service street through there or explore stubbing off a private driveway to serve up to 4 lots off of that cul-de-sac. There is significant elevation change from the north end of the property to the south end of the property where it may be somewhat difficult to extend the private driveway down to service that area where the southerly private driveway the Mancino's are requesting. That end there...will be served internally through a private driveway through the Mancino's but again there's some steep slopes and ravines and the private driveway would have to meander in order to do that. The private driveway would have less environmental effects, less trees, less grading, to do that but the...so I think staff's position is that we're obligated to look at providing adjacent properties street and utility service and I believe that's what we're doing in this circumstance. Without a full fledged development proposal before us from the Mancino's, we really, there's a lot of options in developing the property. The Mancino's are requesting large lots. That's fine. That's great here. It would be nicely preserved with that. There's also potential that the Mancino's would sell the property at some future date to another developer and we would 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 have potentially a 15,000 square foot lot subdivision. So it's critical from a street and utility aspect that it provide the infrastructure and street right-of-way to service that for a full fledged subdivision. Nutting: Did I hear correctly, did the applicant prefer Option A or B and not C? David Gestach: Yes. Nutting: ...Option C. Aanenson: That was before...we asked Mancino's to explore whether or not, there was a portion of this plat that is on the Gestach-Paulson that's called Outlot A. This portion isn't being platted right now. That's a future development... Mancino's looked at going out through there and we asked them to see... Nutting: I think there are a number of issues here. I think I'm going to defer maybe some of those to the other commissioners. Scott: Okay, Diane. Harberts: I guess just from my perspective, I'm certainly torn with regard to the opportunity to develop the land on both parties in the way that they want to. When I go back or revisit our other plans with regard to how important it is to the community with regards to it's natural resources, and the uniqueness that exists on the Mancino property. I guess I'm not quite sure. I think there's a lot of, I think the commission should maybe have a discussion with regard to some of those values that we place on our natural resources and see if this might be one of those projects that we might want to have some kind of special consideration because of what we're dealing with. The development itself with regard to the applicant, I guess I'm okay with it in broad concept and I guess my concern lies more with that overall picture, especially when we're dealing with some of those special resources. And I'm just, I'm undecided. I really am. Scott: So you need more time to consider? More time to think about it or. Harberts: Well mine is, I think maybe it is a matter of more time to think about it because we have a really unique feature here and when you look at some of the work we've done with our other developments, I think it deserves a little extra special consideration here. And you know, I mean Kate kind of characterized it well when she said we don't have all the answers but we're trying. Maybe at this point that's all we can do but it sounds like both the applicant and the Mancino's are trying to work something out. I guess personally I'd like to 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 see this resolved for all parties, including the city. If we're locking ourselves in by some type of approval on it tonight. I'd rather then table it or like I said, see it resolved. If we're in fear of locking ourselves into something if approval is given tonight. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Harberts: Did you find your page? Conrad: I found my page, yeah. I like the staff report. I think they covered most everything. It seems like a good staff report. I like one of the additions the Mancino's made about the tree easement. I think that's important. I think what everybody is talking about is sort of unclear in my mind right now. I'm not really sure. Road alignment for Lake Lucy I think should be as per the original. I don't like Alternative B for Lake Lucy. I like the way it was originally specked and I think that's where it should be. In terms of access to the Mancino property, I really appreciate what they're trying to do. It's a little bit, yeah it's funny you look at it, it's not based on what we typically do here in our bigger lot subdivisions but what they're trying to do is what we endorse. But to a degree it seems a little bit, it's hard to totally grasp what they're trying to do. I'm not sure I understand it yet. I certainly don't mind an access to the north off of the proposed Brenden Pond cul-de-sac going into their property. I'd reduce the number of lots on the plat that I'm currently, on the subdivision that I'm seeing. I think if a road were to swing to the north off of that cul-de-sac, I'd really, I think I'd be eliminating a lot there. And I also, I think there's yeah. I'd be eliminating a lot up there and swinging at least a road or a cul-de-sac into the Mancino property. I'm not sure how to deal with what they're requesting for the private drive to the southwest of their parcel. Bottom line. Like the staff report. Like the tree easement. Road access to Mancino is, I'm up in the air on that. I guess I do want an access on the northwest corner. I'm not sure if it's a private driveway or if it's a connection to that cul-de-sac. If that cul-de-sac literally dead ends into the Mancino property. If it dead ends into it, I'd keep a lot, Lot 15. I want to have a full lot there so that would back up to the school. I don't really know what I'm talking about because I haven't walked the property and I know Matt has so again I guess I'm going to, maybe Matt can persuade us a little bit because I know he's been out there and maybe he has a better feel for it. Scott: Okay, Matt. Thanks. Ledvina: Well the issues that are associated with the plat are real thorny ones and the problem that I see the Mancino's face in terms of their development is that the west part of their property is isolated by a ravine and they feel the need to maintain that landform and also the trees that are associated with that. Because if they go blowing roads through there, I mean they're going to wipe out a tremendous amount of really beautiful area and. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Scott: Can I stop you for just a second? How would this fit in with our bluff ordinance? That ravine. Is that considered a bluff? Aanenson: I don't believe it would be, no. Ledvina: I don't think it would, no. Aanenson: There is a ravine that topographically. I mean we looked at putting a culvert in there and yes, it does pose a significant...but maybe not. Scott: Okay. I just thought maybe with that ordinance. Ledvina: I don't think that comes into play but in terms of the access. I would generally agree with Ladd that the northern access be provided. I don't know about the access towards the southeast corner of the Mancino parcel. I don't know how that would work. There's still, according to the grading plan that the applicant has proposed, there'd be some, it would really run havoc with their grading plan because they do have some steep slopes right in that corridor. I don't know. It would almost seem that although the property lines have served to kind of define the vegetation for landform to the western part of the Mancino property is really with this subdivision or with this parcel. And so it's always hard when the lines get drawn on the maps and I think that's the exact same thing we're going to see with the other parcel to the east and in relation to Mancino's south line there too. Although there's, the trees have been come up because of the amount of time. Still it's, you're dealing with kind of a related land area in terms of the slopes, etc. Okay. Having said that, I would feel that there should be a way of running that northern street to the property line and extending some kind of private drive to the south. I don't know. I think that possibly the south private drive could be reviewed to see if that could be eliminated. I didn't have an opportunity to review the grading plan before this evening and I guess I do have some concerns immediately as I look at this grading plan. I think the, first of all I think that a conservation easement of 30 feet along the property boundary abutting Mancino's represents an excellent idea in trying to preserve those trees but you, the grading plan as indicated this evening grades right to the property line with some severe slopes so I don't know how off the top of my head, I don't know how to remedy that or reconcile the situation with the conservation easement and the grading as shown. Obviously if they're going to grade right to the property line, that would actually affect some of the trees that actually are on the Mancino property so that essentially is unacceptable. In the other portions of the subdivision I see that the developer is relatively conscientious of the trees that are bordering the wetland on the west part of the parcel and then even in the south. They've done a pretty good job of staying away from the wetland area so it's essentially that difficult area near the southeast or southwest corner of the Mancino's that I think has to be reworked and I don't know if you change the grades here, I 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 don't know how that would change the street grades. Or what can be done there. If necessary, perhaps retaining walls represent an option. I don't know. The other thing that we normally have with these plats before we make decisions relates to the tree conservation and we generally have a tree inventory associated with these developments and although I can, I generally have the feeling that the trees along the western part of the development, adjacent to the wetland, I have a feeling that the grading doesn't go into those trees. I don't really know that. And again, along the east boundary I have concerns there too. There also is quite a bit of grading in Outlot A that doesn't appear to be necessary. And again, I don't know what trees are down in that area and how that's going to affect what could be done there in the future so I think that, I don't know, can they grade on Outlot A? If this is all platted together. Al-Jaff: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. So that would be something that I'd like to see also. Yeah, it appears they're grading quite a bit there. Well at any rate, I didn't have very much time to study that plan. Let's see. I guess as far as the street layout, it seems to be utilizing the area fairly well. I don't have a problem with that. Just for looking at some of the conditions of the staff report, there's some duplications in here I think. Number 8 is repeated as number 14. And then 25, 26, 19 is also repeated. Let's see. As it relates to number 9. Dave, I had a question on condition number 9. Talking about Lake Lucy Road. Would we also want to identify that those lots that are platted with, or that are developed with Outlot A shall be limited to interior streets or I guess do we have to define that at this time. Hempel: I don't believe we do. The other problem we have here is if Lake Lucy Road alignment does get shifted northerly, there is a potential lot site or two on the south side which may be appropriate so I guess at this stage we would have another chance at Outlot A. That would have to be platted and brought back before you to address that issue. Ledvina: Okay. So we would see Outlot A as a preliminary plat before us again, okay. Hempel: That's correct. Ledvina: Okay. I don't know what else I need to comment on here. I guess my overall feeling is that I'm a little uncomfortable. I am uncomfortable with the situation with the tree inventory. I would like to see the developer and the Mancino's try to work a little bit more on the access scenario because it appears that they're worlds apart. The developer does not want the private driveway and it appears that that's the preferred technique for development for the Mancino's and I don't know that we can get between that process and try to resolve that here tonight. And it's important because it really will affect how that area associated 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 with the ravine gets developed and whether there's extensive grading in there or not and associated tree loss so I think we could see a little more work on this one. Scott: Dave I just, I have a question. Just a question. I noticed that the official, it looks like the official alignment for Lake Lucy Road shows the road, and I'm talking about the area between West Baptist Church and the Carlson property. It appears that there's quite a bit of clearance inbetween the property to the south. When I look at the applicants drawing, it comes right up to the property line. My question is, what kind of an impact, since we're talking about adjoining properties, we really have not spoken about the Carlson property. With the change in the alignment, what sort of impact is that going to have on the Carlson property? It looks like the road, the applicant has shifted the road and I can't tell you how many feet or what it is. I mean it's obvious if the road goes straight through there, they're going to lose, probably lose 2 lots. Hempel: I believe that roadway alignment for Lake Lucy Road has been established as a part of the feasibility study the city has conducted. Scott: On the applicant's plan? Okay. Hempel: That's correct. My understanding. Ledvina: It looks a little different. Scott: Well it's a lot different. I mean I'm looking at this. Ledvina: Yeah. The section just east of Highway 41. In terms of the feasibility study and what the applicant is. Scott: Yeah I don't know, is this an official map here of the proposed Lake Lucy alignment? This is, okay. Well when I compare this to the alignment to the east, or the west side of the applicant's development, it touches the property line on the south side. So I'm trying to figure out if this is official, it's not the same as what the applicant has on their property. Hempel: I believe in the feasibility study they showed 2 or 3 different alignments for extending out to the Westside Baptist Church directly affected the Carlson property to the south. There is a degraded wetland on that southwest corner of the Baptist Church site. That was one option. I think...elected to align. Scott: Swing it up, yeah. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Hempel: ...rejuvenate or restore that wetland... Scott: If you have a preliminary plat map you can, if you happen to have that, you can see how there's a difference between the road alignments and my question is, where is it going to be? Aanenson: I think the simple answer to that is, Mr. Engelhardt, Bill Engelhardt designed Lake Lucy project and he's also the project engineer for the Gestach-Paulson piece so we're confident that he matched the alignments. That would be our qualification on that and Mr. Carlson, as Dave indicated, is aware of this alignment that was approved by the City Council as part of the feasibility study. So they should match... Scott: Okay. Well I just was concerned because I saw some differences that were visible in these two. Aanenson: ...again, we put this in for your edification... Scott: Okay, that's fine. I don't have any other comments. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that we table preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brenden Pond. Scott: Is there a second? Harberts: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table this item. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brenden Pond. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (Nancy Mancino did not participate in voting on this item.) Scott: So we'll be seeing this, what on the 7th? Aanenson: If you give the staff direction? Scott: Okay, pretty easy. Matt is going to need the time and the rest of us are going to need the time to review the grading plan. We need a tree inventory. Aanenson: We have a tree inventory that was done. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Scott: I mean a graphic representation of where they are. I mean we went through this with Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. We had a listing of all the trees but we had no idea where they were. Something like that where we can see the locations and then also staff's best guess of the trees that are going to be removed due to streets, utilities and pads. Building pads. What did I miss? Harberts: I'd like a little further work, consideration with regard to the environmental resources here. With regard to full road versus perhaps that private drive concept and recognize that it's probably not the usual way that the city likes to conduct business but again I guess I'm just pointing out that I feel we have a unique situation here with regards to the environment and maybe just revisit it. Maybe the applicant, the Mancino's and city staff can sit down and maybe there's a resolution. It sounds like you're close. See if there's some alternative that is palatable for everyone. But I personally think there's some environmental issues here that we should be sensitive to. Thank you. Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, also along that, the east property boundary and dealing with the grading in relation to the conservation easement. I think that has to be addressed somehow. And how that affects the grading for the entire parcel I don't know. Scott: Okay. Ladd. Conrad: Just as a point of clarification. I know we can serve the two lots the Mancino's want to serve on the northwest with an extended cul-de-sac into their property. Dead ending into their property. I know we can. Well I'd like to know if that's possible. Same street standards as not a drive but the same street standards as we're using on the Brenden Pond roadway and then the question again is, how do we service the, can we service the two lots to the southwest and the Mancino property. Is there a feasible way of doing that and is that besides the private drive that was recommended. Scott: Okay. Does that help? Aanenson: Yes, thank you. I'm sure we've got everything. Scott: Well I'm glad you asked. We need that sometimes. Nutting: Part of the hypothetical here is you're talking about a plat for the Mancino property which doesn't exist and may not ever exist and I think, I sense in thinking through this process and what, where staff is coming at this from is you know we may never get the applicant and the Mancino's to agree you know sitting down so then we're left with making a decision. That decision either takes away a lot from the applicant or impacts the potential 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 development which the Mancino's may or may not do. As we say, they could sell the land. Someone else could come in and the northerly entrance may not be a significant issue. So what I struggle with in this whole thing is, we've got the applicant before us. We have to make the decision on how we're going to impact that on the basis of what might be impacted in the adjacent development. I'm not sure where we, you know the dividing line in terms of, I guess we're playing a little bit of, we're developing the Mancino property here with the street proposal that we're making. Harberts: But I think what we're also doing is. Nutting: Or we're moving towards that. Harberts: And I'm not disagreeing with you Ron. Nutting: I'm not on one side or the other. I'm throwing out the position here and I think we need to be a little careful as we, or it's very definitely it's a piece of property with a resources that for all of the...this is the type of thing we want to be careful about and make sure that we preserve what we can from a development standpoint but I struggle with what we do with assuming they can't come to some agreement down the road as to accessing private drives or if staff doesn't feel there's any room to give on the private drive issue versus Option C that they're proposing. What direction we turn. Harberts: And I would just add or comment or take it from there on that perhaps what we're facing is perhaps a situation in which in the true sense of planning, after all the numbers are ran and all of this, it's like what does my gut tell me because this is really what we're doing is guiding land use. I think that's the real, one of the real elements here that we have to deal with. And there's nothing wrong with that...but that's where my frustration or going back and revealing all of the things that we've done with other developments. The Lake Susan. The tree inventory. The conservation. All of those things. To me it looks like we have all of those elements here. Wait a minute. Maybe we need to just stop and revisit that. Understand what we're doing. Because of this site we don't have, I don't know if there's a whole of other sites like this but it's just a matter of taking a little extra time. Understanding what we're doing. Nutting: I agree. Scott: Good. Thank you for your comments. Thank you all for coming. 23 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: Sept. 7, 1994 CC DATE: Sept. 26, 1994 CASE #: 87-3 PUD & STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Preliminary Site Plan Approval for 50 Units (25 structures) Owner Occupied Twin Homes Multifamily Development Z 2) Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide 9.7 acres into 51 lots Q V LOCATION: West of Powers Boulevard, north and south of Lake Susan Hills Drive., Powers Place 0 APPLICANT: Jasper Development Corporation a— 235 West 1st Street Q Waconia, MN 55387 PRESENT ZONING PUD, Planned Unit Development ACREAGE: 9.7 acres DENSITY: 5.1 u/a (gross) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD; Single Family Homes S - PUD; Single Family Homes E - PUD;Prairie Knoll Park, Prairie Creek Townhomes, vacant outlot for medium density town homes and Powers Boulevard W - PUD; Single Family Homes W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. (1) PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has steep slopes on the west side of the property. It contains a heavily vegetated area in the center. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Medium Density Residential • -rNfi � ... IV4�r; -ARS pr T �� I4 4 t vir ` .` A�� t�� +.y—�`.y M ��"to \ LAKE — h -- LAKE ANN pg "'-_ .sr.: logo V:� r1_ • 11i I RD \� • ..�awn. _ s 0 i! _ ram • "los 0 -iiiijerker.... -adv. , It,"• •Ninil 11 1 AKE. r MI ,.I ANN t-1: _,_... da •e g ' PARK . :nom : �Ajol Ml�i7 per: hk.,‘ i--N_ iI RR --- iso` -.. .':�: ��. R 12 t "."l .2. E ! ." rI, / C Emmet taiii alplairs1 . plIFIWIRNIIII IOP , )1111° '�� !'�. - .�.. >_.V.,ill,. 10P . litilesa 1 4 WM it j1k ----111111.. It'. s�_ 1��,l Am L-• LL ,:� I. PARK • ` , .,,i:. uu 's; ••= •E 41T ° + w v R9. ,_......-.. ../_.r - - r �• GAS\ / .s . 1.4 -- ... I = O_,63I✓.;11+ 111 s° WI PA r. _ Ill' . 4.:AIR y a ,_` LAKE SUSAN ,_ UD -r- �-e.If.m1Iyf. / '= f F� UD. /-i,- , .aN1 a-'�i,��,�% RD °/^�� _ NE.. " .�' • • rsiiiNIs Blit;‘,. • c i.' .' ° A IBI '4NK • �Nt�..-.6.....1.1„✓'yI �'yh �. — - 1.........„)...„../,- - ' I -p,..--_,,, ,-4.:ate�L ."'- _.�r' II 1! ) i , . ' • 1 %II, ..., . ..o.. WIC, = ----------j- _. iie ___ „, .. .. , ... 4.* .-..--4.T.i.1 , 4 .,.... „,, \ ..,,,,,_ all e RS . % r ,_ •_ 4 40.,... ..,„..s.,...7.4,...c. _ „a. 1 . .\ a - Ili •*N ' . • ‘44 1 :(,_ , ��t.\� °Lr-- -__ IC`s-a ''n ��r■ 900:—1 X11 �rM;, — ' NILLs PaRKO/ R —� _ ' �' o oy`• PUD—AT j Cr 1 ' Qe HEIGHTS BaNO✓ LAA . ,_J / I AIF% . Ir..SF R/LEr 1 1 I 1 . , IR , -0, ... -. , 411 Ilk A2 a . ito . . .... , c)1... ...,r_,: : <,_ ...- ------ ---- --- - rjil&"....r I l ( M �� / 17 ,O cmc ,`.� r A2 2 ! P y� .�• ecus PARK - /11 �` • CREEK I / - • IY ss • ` [ U Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant, Jasper Development, is requesting preliminary plat and site plan approval to construct a 50 unit townhome housing project on Outlot B. Outlot B was designated as a medium density site as part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD approval. The townhomes are proposed to be owner occupied and to be located on 50 zero lot line parcels. The housing style and density generally falls under the townhome development type buildings. The 9.7 acre site is located west of Powers Boulevard and north and south of Lake Susan Hills Drive. The gross density is 5.1 units per acre. Access will be provided by two private streets and the community property (Lot 51) will be designated as an outlot and owned and maintained by a homeowners association. The site is currently zoned PUD-R8, Medium Density Residential and utilities are available for the area. The current site plan was designed on the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and existing stands of trees on the site must be preserved. The proposed townhomes are attractive. There will be two twinhome types designed for this site. The Voyager (1280 sq. ft.) is a slab on grade design and will be used on the flatter portion of the site. The Itaska (1140 sq. ft.) is a walkout design accommodating the steeper portion of the site. Both units will have vinyl siding and a light dimensional asphalt shingle roof. Shingle style siding on gables, continuous white banding, and use of complementary siding colors to add texture. Overhangs with columns define the entrances. Cupolas, gridded vinyl windows with wide trim, columns with trim at base and capital, and optional decks with similar treatment will be provided. A homeowners association will be established to maintain the site and units and enforce their covenants and restrictions. There are two regulations which influence the development of this site. A PUD contract and R-8 zoning district regulations. The PUD contract has specific conditions which must be followed with the development of each phase of the PUD. The PUD contract states that the mixed medium density sites of the PUD, which the subject site is, must meet the regulations of the R-8 zoning district, unless otherwise specified in the PUD contract. Within the PUD contract there appears to be a conflict. The PUD contract states that the medium density sites cannot exceed 9.3 units/acre and also states that the impervious surface coverage of Outlot B cannot exceed 30%. It would almost be impossible to reach 9.3 units/acre with an impervious surface coverage of not more than 30%. Throughout the staff reports and Planning Commission/City Council minutes for the original approval, it was stated that 9.3 was the maximum density allowed and the applicant was not guaranteed this density. The proposed 50 units result in density of 5.1 units/acre. The impervious surface coverage is 34%. Therefore, the density is not as high as it could be, but the impervious coverage exceeds the PUD contract but is below the R-8 zoning district standards (35%). The applicant is aware of the situation mainly because the same situation took place with the prior development, Prairie Creek twinhomes. In that case, the PUD allowed a 31% hard surface coverage, and the applicant Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 3 was permitted 24 units which required a 40% hard surface coverage. Staff will be recommending the applicant be permitted a maximum hard surface coverage of 35% as permitted in the R-8 district. There are some changes that will need to take place on the plat. The proposed units have dimensions that exceed the dimensions of the lots. This change can be easily accommodated. The proposed landscaping needs to be improved. Staff requests that the applicant provide extensive landscaping and berms to screen the development from Powers Boulevard, Lake Susan Hills Drive and the single family residents west of the site. There should also be increased internal landscaping. A petition from the some of the neighbors in Lake Susan Hills West subdivision has been presented to city staff. The petition raises several issues. The main concern is what does the city benefit from this type of development. Staff believes the issues raised can be resolved as the development evolves. In addition, the development is under the density allowed with the original PUD agreement. The Park and Recreation Commission has recommended that the applicant pay park and trail fees in lieu of park land dedication. Staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions outlined in the report. BACKGROUND In 1987, the city approved a concept PUD approval for Lake Susan Hills. The PUD permitted up to 411 single family units, created 3 outlots for medium density units and one outlot for high density units (Attachment #1). The single family lots have been platted in 9 additions continuously since PUD approval. One of the outlots (Outlot C) designated for medium density units was platted in April 1993 for 24 units. The remaining medium and high density outlots have not been developed. A PUD contract, adopted as part of the approval, listed the outlots and their proposed uses. Outlots B (9.7 acres), C (4.4 acres) and D (7.9 acres) were designated for medium density development. The PUD contract states that the development shall provide a minimum of 23.6 acres of mixed medium density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density greater than 9.3 units/acre. To date, only 24 units have been approved, leaving a total number of dwelling units of mixed medium density residential property of 197. Except as modified by the PUD contract, the development shall be in accordance with the used standards and requirements of the R-8 Zoning District. The only regulations concerning medium density modified by the PUD contract was the impervious surface coverage could not exceed certain amounts, Outlot B - 30%, Outlot C - 31% and Outlot D - 27%, and that the density could not be greater than 9.3 units/acre. The R-8 zoning district permits up to 35% hard surface coverage and up to 8 units/acre density. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 4 SITE PLAN APPROVAL General Site Plan/Architecture The site is 9.7 acres with a gross density of 5.1 units per acre. The 5.1 units per acre is under the allowed PUD density of 9.3 units per acre and the R-8 ordinance of 8 units/acre. The applicant is proposing to develop this site with 50 owner occupied units. The current site plan was designed on the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and existing stands of trees on the site must be preserved. The proposed townhomes are attractive. There will be two twinhome types designed for this site. The Voyager (1280 sq. ft.) is a slab on grade design and will be used on the flatter portion of the site. The Itaska (1140 sq. ft.) is a walkout design accommodating the steeper portion of the site. Both units will have vinyl siding and a light dimensional asphalt shingle roof. Shingle style siding on gables, continuous white banding, and use of complementary siding colors to add texture. Overhangs with columns define the entrances. Cupolas, gridded vinyl windows with wide trim, columns with trim at base and capital, and optional decks with similar treatment will be provided. A homeowners association will be established to maintain the site and units and enforce their covenants and restrictions. Staff is recommending that the applicant introduce some variation among buildings facing Powers Boulevard, through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, or color. PRELIMINARY PLAT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL Lots/Density The applicant is proposing to subdivide 9.7 acres of property zoned PUD-R into 50 zero lot line parcels for townhome units. The property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density (4-8 Units/Acre). The subject site is Outlot B from the Lake Susan Hills PUD and was created as a mixed medium density site. The PUD contract for Lake Susan Hills PUD stated that the mixed medium density sites (there are 2 such outlots left) could not exceed an overall density of 9.3 units/acre, and specifically, Outlot B (subject site) could not exceed 30% impervious surface coverage. The proposed 50 lots are located in clusters north and south of the site. The lot sizes are as follows: Lots 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 27 through 50 - 4,260 square feet. Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 through 26 - 4,380 square feet The townhome lots are located within a larger community owned parcel, shown as Lot 51 on the preliminary plat. Lot 51 contains the private streets and open space. Staff is recommending that Lot 51 be changed to Outlot A. This is consistent with any community property which will be Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 5 owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Also, if it is an outlot, it is clear to all that it can never be developed. The density of the site is 5.1 units/acre (gross). Since it is a townhome development with private streets and mutual open space, the density calculated was gross density rather than the typical net density. The impervious surface coverage of the site is at 34%. The PUD contract stated that the density could not exceed 9.3 units/acre and that the impervious could not exceed 30%. As stated previously, the density is not as high as it could be, but the impervious coverage exceeds the PUD contract but is below the R-8 zoning district standards (35%). Staff will be recommending the applicant be permitted a maximum hard surface coverage of 35% as permitted in the R-8 ordinance. If the percentage of impervious surface coverage is permitted to be increased, the PUD contract shall have to be amended to allow the impervious surface coverage of Outlot B to be 34% The twinhouse units are maintaining a 25' setback form Powers Boulevard, Lake Susan Hills Drive and the existing single family lots to the west (which are part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD). The 25' setback is from the R-8 zoning regulations which the PUD contract states to follow unless otherwise amended. There are no internal setbacks since the site is serviced internally by a private street. Eight units are located within the southerly portion of the site and will be served via a right in/ right out only private street. The northerly portion of the site will contain the remaining 42 units and will also be served via a private street. Saving the large stand of trees that bisects the site in the middle is the main reason behind having two access points onto Powers Boulevard and not connecting the private streets. COMPLIANCE TABLE Ordinance PUD Project Proposal Hard Surface Coverage 35% 31% 34% Setback from Collector 25 feet NA 25 Internal Private Streets NA NA NA Density 8 units 9.3 units 5.1 Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 6 Landscaping and Tree Preservation The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan. The applicant has proposed saving the majority of the existing stand of trees located within the southerly quarter of the site. All of the vegetated areas that are being saved shall be preserved by a conservation easement. The Landscaping and Tree Preservation requirements state that a landscape buffer is required when a subdivision plat is contiguous with a collector street. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape materials consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or a tree preservation area. The plan must identify plant material locations along Powers Boulevard. Appropriate financial security will be required. A reforestation plan will attempt to replace all those trees being lost due to grading. The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to develop a reforestation plan to replace the tree removal. This stand of trees has a total canopy coverage of 1.35 acres, or 16%. The landscaping ordinance requires a minimum of 20% canopy coverage. Based on the grading plan, it appears that some of the trees will be lost due to grading. The following constitutes our calculation of the required forestation and tree replacement: There is a 14% baseline canopy coverage (1.35 acre). Tree canopy within a designated wetland is excluded from calculation. The required post development canopy coverage is 20% or a total of 1.94 acres of tree canopy. To meet the minimum canopy coverage requirements, the developer would need to develop a forestation plan for 0.59 acres (1.94-1.35) which would require the planting of 24 trees (0.59 x 40). In addition, because the developer is removing canopy coverage that is required to meet their minimum canopy coverage, they must replace the removed canopy area at a rate of 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed. Since the applicant did not provide these calculations, staff has estimated that the removed canopy coverage area is approximately 0.48 acre. The replacement planting is then calculated at 0.57 acres (0.48 x 1.2). The number of trees required for replacement planting is calculated at 23 trees (0.57 x 40). The total tree planting requirement as part of the development for forestation and tree replacement is 47 trees. The PUD agreement states that the developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping, and setbacks from lot lines. The proposed landscaping plan do not provide adequate landscaping along the west edge of the property. The agreement also states that the applicant shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per multiple family unit. The applicant shall provide the city with a cost estimate for the required landscaping. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 7 Street lighting for the interior private streets is not shown on the site plan. Staff is recommending that before this item goes to the City Council, that a street lighting plan be prepared for staff review. Street lights will be required in accordance to City standards along the private streets. Street Names In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. Building Setbacks The building codes requires that walls for single family dwellings within three feet of the property line be of one-hour fire-resistive construction with no openings. The building code further requires that projections (overhangs) within three feet of the property line be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. Walls and overhangs shown on the submitted plans will be within three feet of the property line and will not meet code requirements. Property lines should be adjusted so that each pair of lots is 74 feet wide, thereby enabling either model to be constructed as shown (windows in end walls and six inch overhangs) on any lot. Otherwise the proposed buildings could be downsized to achieve the same effect. WETLANDS The City's Wetland inventory identifies one ag/urban wetland on the northern boundary of the property. This wetland has been significantly altered, however, the wetland should not be impacted further without proper mitigation. There is another low lying area in the middle of the site that was identified on the national wetlands inventory map that should be investigated too. The applicant should have a qualified wetland's delineator investigate the property and stake all existing wetlands on-site. These areas should be included on the grading and drainage plan. Buffer Strip A buffer strip is required around all wetlands in the City. 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 is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 8 Alteration/Mitigation The city recommends that the applicant first try to avoid impacts to wetlands. If avoidance is not possible, the applicant will have to follow the rules of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), the city's Wetland Ordinance, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The city administers the WCA and the city's ordinance. The Army Corps of Engineers administers the Clean Water Act. If mitigation is necessary, it may be possible to coordinate mitigation activities with the Powers Boulevard reconstruction project. Keep in mind that half of the mitigation may be purchased in the city's wetland restoration bank that is being established as part of the road project. The other half of the required mitigation has to be replaced in upland. This area should be on-site or purchased. The farther away the purchased land for mitigation, the more mitigation that is required. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The city has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post-developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-development and post-development conditions for 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre- developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre- developed and post-developed conditions. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 21/2-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 9 Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a user fee for water quality systems. Dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be waived. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a user fee for different land uses based on average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Multi- family medium-density developments will have a fee of$2,975 per acre. Less wetland areas, the proposed development of acres of multi-family residential would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $28,857.00. The city will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, land dedication, etc. DRAINAGE The SWMP shows a utilized storm water pond along the northern boundary which qualifies as an existing wetland. It is recommended that this degraded basin be used as a storm water pond and the wetland be mitigated for off-site. If this is not possible, the wetland should be protected from further degradation and all storm water pretreated with a sediment trap prior to discharge into the wetland. The SWMP also shows a storm water quality basin in the general vicinity where their northerly access is proposed. This basin is necessary as part of this site development as well as containing off site runoff from the Lake Susan Hills development as well as possibly Powers Boulevard. The existing 24" storm sewer underneath Powers Boulevard has been extended and upgraded in conjunction with Joe Miller's Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition. In addition, Joe Miller's development constructed NURP basins to pretreat the runoff from this development and others prior to discharging into the wetlands downstream. This water quantity basin is important to maintain a desired level of flood protection for the area. It may be possible to relocate this proposed basin area with the existing wetland to the north and the whole system controlled by a storm sewer outlet and pipe system to the wetland in Joe Miller's development. The applicant has met with staff to discuss this possibility; however, the applicant needs to address this further with their engineer to see if it would be feasible. Individual catch basins are proposed within the private street for conveyance of storm water to the pond located in the northerly portion of the site. The calculations shall use the 10 year 24 hour storm event for storm sewer sizing. The Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 10 pond shall be sized in accordance with the city's Surface Water Management Plan. Any additional ponding area provided outside the required amount for this development will be credited back against the applicant's SWMP fees. The applicant is proposing drainage swales to convey runoff from a portion of the streets into the county ditch. This will require a permit from the Carver County Highway Department. It should be pointed out that at this stage, Carver County is working with BRW in preparing detailed construction plans for the upgrade and widening of Powers Boulevard to an urban street section. This work will also include installation of storm sewers which will pick up the runoff from the proposed streets. Staff recommends that prior to final platting, the applicant and his engineer should meet with the city, county and BRW to discuss the specifics on pond design and access to the site. GRADING The site is almost entirely associated with steep slopes and is difficult to develop without extensive site grading. In addition, with the lot configuration it is difficult to expand the grading limits to soften the slopes. The applicant is proposing the use of retaining walls to minimize grading and combine construction limits to within the property limits. The applicant has suggested potentially staggering the walls to reduce the height. As proposed, the retaining walls range from 8' to 14' in height. Staff is also concerned with the height of these walls from a safety standpoint. Building codes require engineered drawings of retaining walls in excess of 5' in height. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and met with the applicant and shared the concerns with regard to the amount of site grading, retaining walls, and the row effect of building units along Powers Boulevard. Staff suggested, at a minimum, to rearrange Lots 1-8, Block 1 parallel to one another and slide the units to the east to minimize grading and tree loss. Staff also recommended that the northerly cul-de-sac be shifted to offset to the east, similar to the southerly cul-de-sac bubble, in an effort to pull the units down off the hill side. This may result in the loss of a unit. Staff also suggested an alternative, in an effort to break up the row house effect along Powers Boulevard, by placing the private driveway closer to Powers Boulevard and meandering the street and placing all the units to the west of the private driveway. This would provide for adequate screening along Powers Boulevard and break up the row effect of houses adjacent to Powers Boulevard. In addition, we believe it would not cause any more grading and in fact would most likely reduce the amount of grading and slopes to the west. The applicant expressed concerns that they would be losing desirable walk-out type units along Powers Boulevard, not to mention the loss of a number of units and anticipated equal amount of grading. With the anticipated lot grading into the side of the hill, it is most likely subsurface drainage will be exposed and need to be dealt with by means of drain tile and/or storm sewers. The applicant should be prepared to install minimum drain tiles along the perimeters of the retaining walls as well as behind the curb of the private streets for the individual units to discharge their sump pump into. Installation of retaining walls along the wooded area will require tie backs into the Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 11 bank as high as the retaining wall is. For example, if the retaining wall is 9' high, the limits of construction will extend 9' back from the base of the wall. This will involve additional tree loss which may not have been anticipated by the applicant. EROSION CONTROL In conversations with the applicant's engineer, erosion control measures were inadvertently left off the grading plan at this time. Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorporated on the grading and drainage plan and submitted to the city for review and approval prior to construction. Staff also recommends that the applicant use the city's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to prevent erosion. The catch basins prior to the first lift of asphalt shall be protected by means of hay bales or silt fence. UTILITIES The site is easily serviced by sanitary sewer and water service from along Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer and water service along the private driveway to service the individual units. Since the streets will be private, the utility installation, maintenance and ownership will also be private. All utility lines shall be installed in conformance with the city's latest edition of standards, specifications and detailed plates. The city's Building Department will be monitoring the inspection and permit issuance for the utility installation portion of the project. Fire hydrant layout shall be in accordance with the city's Fire Marshal's recommendations. STREETS Access to the site is proposed in two locations from Powers Boulevard (CR 17). Since Powers Boulevard is a county road, Carver County Highway Department has jurisdiction on access points. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Powers Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial (Class H). The required right-of-way for this type of street system is 100 feet. The right-of-way as shown on the plans indicates a 150 foot corridor which is more than adequate for an urban 4 lane roadway system. Carver County Public Works Department has contracted with BRW for design services for the upgrading and widening of Powers Boulevard. The plans are in a very preliminary stage at this point. The proposed access points have not been approved by Carver County. Safety concerns such as sight distance will be looked at to determine whether or not a full access can be provided or the access points be limited to a right in/right out only on Powers Boulevard. In any case, the applicant shall be required to construct the driveway approaches to be compatible with the future widening and upgrading of County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard). Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 12 The city has received a memo from Carver County regarding their concerns on this development which has been related in the staff report (see attached). MISCELLANEOUS The landscape plan provided by the applicant shows numerous plantings and bermings within the city's drainage and utility easement adjacent to Powers Boulevard. This area needs to be maintained free and clear around the city manholes, fire hydrants and gate valves from a maintenance standpoint. The applicant may work with staff in redesigning a landscape and berming plan that would be compatible with the city's maintenance responsibilities. Landscaping within the drainage and utility easement would be subject to an encroachment agreement whereby the city would not be responsible for replacing any landscape materials that may be lost due to the result of maintenance of the city's infrastructures. EASEMENTS The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as storm water ponding areas. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. PARK AND RECREATION As part of the whole Lake Susan Hills PUD, a significant amount of park land was dedicated to the city and trails were to be developed by the applicant. Therefore, the PUD contract requires no trail fees and '/z park fees. No park land will be required with this proposal. RECOMMENDATION PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of PUD #87-3 and Site Plan Review #94-7 as shown on the plans dated August 2, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the private streets. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions/signs shall be placed on the private street. 2. Change Lot 51 to Outlot A. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 13 3. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot exceed 35%. 4. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative. Introduce some variation among buildings facing powers boulevard, through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, or color. 5. The applicant should submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval. 6. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 7. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication. 8. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units. 9. Fencing shall be placed around the stand of trees to minimize impact during construction. Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a 1.2 canopy basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff. 10. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private streets. 11. A revised landscaping plan which provide additional landscaping and berming along Powers Boulevard (CR 17), and the westerly portion of the site. 12. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review. 13. Adjust property lines and/or buildings to enable compliance with 1988 UBC 504(b), table 5-A and 1710. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 14. Fire Marshal conditions: a. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new "T" intersection. The remaining fire hydrants shall be relocated with equal spacing. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. b. Submit new street names for review and approval. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 14 c. A twenty foot wide fire lane must be maintained on the new proposed north/south street. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on both sides of the street with 75 foot spacing. 15. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 16. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 17. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. Issuance of permits and inspection of the utility lines will be performed by the city's Building Department. Streets and utilities, except the ponding areas, storm sewer outlet and pipe systems, shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. 18. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 19. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 20. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 21. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the state Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 15 22. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Highway Department, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 23. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units. 24. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 25. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way or utility and drainage easements without approval by the city and the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement. 26. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 27. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The pond(s) shall be sized in accordance to the city's Surface Water Management Plan. 28. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. 29. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. 30. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 31. Prior to final platting, the applicant, county and city shall meet to discuss/resolve the specifics on pond design and access to the site. 32. The plat should be redesigned as follows: a. The northerly cul-de-sac shifted to offset to the east. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 16 b. The street system realigned to provide meandering streetscape. c. Realign Lots 1-8, Block 1 parallel to one another and slide the westerly units (Lots 3-6, Block 1) east. d. Remove those lot lines which encroach upon the 25 foot building setback line. e. Street access points shall be compatible with the future widening and upgrading of Powers Boulevard." PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATION "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat PUD #87-3 as shown on the plans dated August 2, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of PUD and site plan." ATTACHMENTS 1. Reduced concept PUD. 2. PUD contract. 3. Narrative from applicant. 4. Letter dated August 31, 1994 from neighbors. 5. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated August 30, 1994. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 22, 1994. 7. Memo from Mark Littfin dated August 10, 1994. 8. Draft copy of Declaration of Covenants. 9. Plans dated August 2, 1994. • F. IA . 0 . tai..141 /3/ ra' A ..►� 0 >tQ�\J� —~\ / CITY Ps21t .-'_ �/ ilIMER `7 OUT O ),/�� Qly CCVT.4� OO �. ¢IL cap=Cu) s eds�d �.� 1 .41 LI S/iC /'Y�i( tor Pr .." ( 3rd cstrr.or G - _. �pallirikAk Q�.:gel.a. ig ss 0- 44 AC/ r/---- air ,„„..... ,4 .., pirikvii u a wet -T,� o ©©aP a �• L ,� ; kek su s �,a a �T o ri I e �`¢e�`ir su�i 12 .437,.1,16:740 Pik 11111„Aa VAC& warn )11 cks•rterr ft, Ma �ft-AVGO Otalloafr• a 44a J oo�e 01111.1111111111Barkt& �� o ��ceded .0, -„,er � .� . , sees A°eery go �� s s� iimmalo so ®• eeo � �� .�� © �� ,yam a . % Atte, .4415 in v . 0,,,v, •Selii"k WM lik'NNW" 111 %ay 4114411:11 LI id ,, ININI- - /N. - -' 10#10111P, 1 ,:,, ,;,,,.•Vall : 3 01/1111A 1111A - \ .1 MI • !;- 45 411,. vispV411011 ... / s..-.•...410 0 s 114 aI � V I, .. • ` i. y 1,�� Q4114.4411111011kip, aitt4 • i1110 •,i-, a .. .�,~ . evei . , � oII / \0 , / iik_ , S � l { J npua.L¢ 7 O • \ \ Q .�..� I.r•t CO" 1.1.0 WI/r•I f1•U nit M \*w`\ S. _t. a' . ).)1....MW. umlaut at D.t4 )l.Lt.c.nit VY 0 /� »..•w••••. w...••...•,.•I rt tie Its.K. ••••••••••boos.*w......i•,»u..0.0. `w \� .� d rvin.nal 3.$•K. •+.1•••»•••..•.•••• •.1• J '7:'..1.` Py .Il)Irtf )i.f IC. S. ••11..,... .» ••... 1. • 1 ..1 ••...r••I.....•• ••�M..)l I O //�/ { :' ' ' its..K. N.•••••••••w .•:0 is w••«:•:• Iii ` I J�\ � •. •1 4.•••1.•••••w•••.. _•:•.. a 1�/ `ice\� w...-..•.MI w•.I.ts u..w w. �_ I I(I( . ...„,/i/ % .1- w•Iw.t•ants 0 011e../.MO. 11 .w.. •..•......+.«�«Nr .1 • • ` lr••I.ts a..tw....1141411.1.. •.....•••• •1. •1 •• •r _� u...f.r.Nil NMI�• URN •1.040 cw•I•••0 M. �l ..a••.••.••••••••.•«. LVMOq.I `V —�J \ rr..w.WNW d.nM1.w •:»M40..•••• •• ••..71....1.1::w .1•1.••...• • .... .7.5ArrAc,�rr�EAT •/ • ==-= )aures R. Hill, ir1C. LAKE wa.» P.�.p • .w•.r _ MILL:r�11TMlw1M11 LAKE SUSAN Mlllf • PLANNERS i ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS ,ON NM.Mat LIM. 4-rrA. CAA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, dated November 16, 1987, between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City") , and LAKE SUSAN HILLS, a Minnesota general partnership, and JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife (the "Developer") . 1. Request for Planned Unit Development Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a Planned Unit Development to be known as "LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PUD" (the "Development") on the land legally described on the attached Exhibit "A". 2 . Planned Unit Development Concept Approval. The City hereby grants general Concept Plan approval of the plan attached as Exhibit "B". Approval is subject to the following: development and final stage approval , a negative declaration of the EAW, compliance with the EAW review findings and compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement . Except as modified herein, each plat shall also be subject to the standards of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as may be amended from time to time. 3. Density and Use. The following densities are approximate and subject to change: A. Single Family Residential. The total number of single family lots in the development shall not exceed 411. Except as modified herein, single family lots shall be developed in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the RSF Zoning District. B. Multiple Family (High Density Residential) . The development shall provide a minimum of 21. 5 acres of high density multiple family residential units. The total number of dwellinc f NOV 1 9 i.:287 r11 /16/87 CITY OF CHANHA56,+� /-7?, /477AcH/7)6-Air � high density multiple family residential property shall not exceed 375, or a density greater than 17. 4 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the development of the high density multiple family residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards , and requirements of the R-12 Zoning District. C. Multiple Family (Mixed Medium Density Residential) . The development shall provide a minimum of 23 . 6 acres of mixed medium density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density greater than 9 . 3 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the development of the mixed medium density residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards , and requirements of the R-8 Zoning District. 4 . Parks. The Developer shall dedicate to the City Outlot F (18 . 1 acres) , Outlot G (9 . 8 acres) , Outlot H (3 . 9 acres) , and Outlot E. A credit of 6. 7 acres for park dedication will be given for Outlot E. Unless otherwise required by the City, conveyances of the park land shall be made when the final plat, wherein a park is located, is signed by the City. The land shall be platted as Outlots and transferred to the City by warranty deed. The Developer, at its sole cost, shall grade the land for the City in accordance with a timetable and plans to be furnished by the City. The Developer shall be given a credit of 500 of the park fee per dwelling unit in the plat for the conveyance of the above described land to the City. The balance of the park dedication fees shall be paid in cash in an amount and at the time required by City ordinance and policies in effect when final plats are approved. -2- • ii 5 . Trail and Sidewalk Development. The Developer shall dedicate trails and sidewalks throughout the Development to the City as indicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan. This dedication satisfies the City's trail dedication fee requirements. Trails shall be completed at the time street improvements are constructed in the phase where the trails and sidewalks or portions thereof are located. The Developer shall construct the following trails and sidewalks: (1) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan. (2) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Audobon Road; and an eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard. (3 ) . Five (5) foot wide concrete off-street trail-sidewalk along one side of all internal streets except cul- de-sacs when the streets are constructed. (4) . Twenty (20) foot wide bituminous off-street trail easement on the west side of Powers Boulevard. This trail segment shall only be constructed if ordered by the City Council . If ordered, the Developer will convey the easement to the City without cost, but the City will pay for the construction. Construction timing will be at the discretion of the City Council . 6. Additional Conditions of Approval. A. The Developer shall provide buffer areas , acceptable to the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping, and setbacks from lot lines. B. The Developer shall not damage or remove any trees except as indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved by the City and submitted with each plat. Trees shall be protected from destruction by snow fences, flagging, staking, or other similar means during grading and construction. -3- / aS C. Wetlands Nos. 14-10 and 23-01 as shown in Exhibit "C" shall be preserved in their natural state. D. The following shall be the maximum percentage of allowable impervious surface: Outlot A 320, Outlot B 30%, Outlot C 31%, and Outlot D 27% . E. The Developer shall provide $500. 00 of landscaping per multiple family unit and $150. 00 per single family unit. 7 . Effect of Planned Unit Development Approval. For five (5) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedications of the development unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls , platting or dedicating requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. 8. Phased Development. The Developer shall develop the development in eleven (11) phases in accordance with the EAW. No earth moving or other development shall be done in any phase prior to approval of final plats and development contract for the phase by the City. 9 . Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the proposed development complies with all applicable City, County, Metropolitan, State, and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances, and Environmental Regulations. The Developer agrees to comply with such laws and regulations. -4- �5 ; S • 10 . Variations from Approved Plans. Minor variances from the approved plans may be approved by the City's Planning Director. Substantial departures from the approved plans shall require an amend- ment to the Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 11. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, and officers a license to enter the plat to inspect the work to be done by the Developer and to perform all work required hereunder if Developer fails to perform in accordance herewith. 12 . Utility, Pond, and Drainage Easements. The Developer shall dedicate to the City at the time of final plat approvals utility, drainage , and ponding easements located within the plat, including access , as required to serve the plat. 13 . Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from claims by the Developer and third parties, including, but not limited to, lot purchasers, other property owners , contractors, subcontractors, and materialmen, for damages sustained, costs incurred, or injuries resulting from approval of the Agreement, the development, final plats, plans and specifications, and from the resulting construction and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City, its officers, agents, and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees. The Developer shall pay in full all -5- bills submitted to it by the City for such reimbursements within sixty (60) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all development work until the bills are paid in full . Bills not paid within sixty (60) days shall be subject to an eight (8%) percent per annum interest charge. 14 . Miscellaneous. A. Breach of any material term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, plats, and certificates of occupancy. B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Planned Unit Development Agreement is for any reason held invalid as a result of a challenge brought by the Developer, its agents or assigns, the City may, at its option, declare the entire Agreement null and void and approval of the Final Development Plan shall thereby be revoked. C. The action or inaction of any party shall not consti- tute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council . Any party's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement after expiration of time in which the work is to be completed shall not be a waiver or release. D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded in the Carver County Recorder's Office. E. This Agreement shall be liberally construed to protect the public's interest. -6- 7 25 - F. Due to the preliminary nature of many of the exhibits and plans and the timing of the overall Development, addendums to this Agreement may be required to address concerns not specifically set forth herein. G. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs , successors or assigns, as the case may be. H. The Developer represents to the City that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that a state environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that a federal or state impact statement or any other review, permit, or approval is required, the Developer shall prepare or obtain it at its own expense. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and reasonable attorney' s fees , that the City may incur in assisting in preparation. 15 . Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, their employees or agents , or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address: 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, Minnesota 55435. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Clerk or mailed to the City by certified or registered mail in care of the City Clerk at the following address: P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 . -7- �� 5_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor BY: Don Ashworth, City Manager LAKE SUSAN HILLS BY: (7-.1: -_;,2-7-w A partner JAMES A. CURRY BARBARA CURRY Q STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1987, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ni!/ ( ss. COUNTY OF�L' ; ;a,c.. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i day of /.2422,Y '. , 1987, by .`2.:7.:.4 ,J' _i f-'/nce,,v' partner of Lake Susan Hills, a Minnesota general partnership en� inits behalf. • • i ,. BARBARA FISHER NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARY F1.0LI.^— MINNCSOTA HENJC?i!.J r,'CUWTY `►�..• myComm�sson L. iI03 J.ity 10 IDD? -8- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. -. COUNTY OF �t,`�� . ) ..v ......... . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this `, J day of ::E mt.l.,� , 1987, by JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife. (7 OTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson, P.A. 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 (612) 455-1661 -9- , 20 c�S OWNER/DEVELOPER Jasper Development 235 West lst Street Waconia, MN 55387 SURVEYOR/ENGINEER REHDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Narrative for POWERS PLACE POWERS PLACE will be a 50 lot single family twin home development. Standard Family sizes of 2 to 3 people are expected. Each unit will have a 2 car garage with 2 exterior stalls in the front of each garage. The total parcel is 9.7 acres with individual townhome lots varying from 2, 130 square feet to 2,190 square feet. The unite are served by two street connections to Powers Blvd. One cul-de- sac and street connection serves 8 units on the south end. A tee shaped street with two cul-de-sacs serves the remaining 42 units. This layout was developed after discussions with City Staff. Mature trees are saved by having two connections to Powers Blvd. and not developing the area between the two southerly cul-de-sacs. Powers Blvd. sanitary sewer will serve the site from an existing 8" line. A new manhole is required at the north end on the existing line for connections. An existing manhole will be used in connection of the southerly cul-de-sac. Each unit will be sewered separately with a 6" P.V.C. service. Water service is provided by three connections to the water lines within Powers Blvd. ditch. 6" watermain will be looped through the northern portion of site tying into Powers Blvd on both ends. 1" copper water services will serve each unit. Hydrants are spaced approximately 300' apart. Storm sewers will be used on the site to collect the runoff from the street and the front half of the unite on the east side. All storm sewer will be RCP. The drainage will be directed to the north end of the site to a sedimentation pond. The pond is sized using NURP standards. Treated runoff is then directed through storm sewer to a 24" culvert which crosses Powers Blvd. to the east. Grading will be done over the entire site at this time to balance the excavating and dispose or make use of existing materials. The site varies from 916 on the east to 952 on the west. All silt fence and ponding must be in place prior to starting grading operations. Topsoil varies from 1.6 feet to 2.6 feet in depth with poorer soils being encountered in the lower part of the site. Fill has been placed on part of the site. Soil correction is required 4.5 feet below existing grade at the worst boring location. Soils cut from the upper part of the site and lower levels of the unite will be used as engineered fill in other areas of the development. Actual quantities will vary depending on soil moisture, working conditions and how much poor soil will be encountered. Grading is expected to start as soon as City & Government approvals can be obtained. Building construction would begin after grading, utility, and Class 5 placement is completed. Buildings will be built one at a time as sales are made. Buildings aro expected to be built in a one to two year span. Temporary seeding and mulching will be placed within two weeks after the mass grading is complete. Sodding around building will take place as each building is completed. Silt fence will stay in place until final sodding is complete. MPCA Health Dept. County and Watershed applications are expected to be submitted within two weeks of preliminary plat approval. Permits are expected within three to five weeks after submittal. Two twinhome types have been designed specifically for this site to take advantage of the existing topography and landscape, and to complement and enhance the neighborhood as a whole. The Voyageur(1280 sq. ft.) is a slab on grade design and will be used on the flatter portions of the site. It features an upper level master bedroom and an open first floor plan with vaulted living, dining and kitchen areas. The Itaska(1140 sq. ft.)is a walkout design accommodating the steeper portions of the site. It includes a first floor master bedroom as well as vaulted living, dining and kitchen areas. The lower level will provide space for optional bedroom and family room areas. Both unit types feature premium quality maintenance free vinyl siding and a light dimensional asphalt shingle roof. Shingle style siding at gables, continuous white banding, and use of complementary siding colors add texture and interest and serve to scale down the massing. Deep overhangs with columns define the entrances and add rhythm and depth to the facade. Cupolas, gridded vinyl windows with wide trim, columns with trim at base and capital, and optional decks with similar treatment add the final touches in providing a traditional flavor to these twinhomes. August 31, 1994 Chanhassen Planning Commission Chanhassen, Minnesota The Lake Susan Hills West community met informally Monday August 29 in the Tom Rasmussen home. This gathering of concerned citizens was prompted by a Twin home development proposed by the Jasper Development company. The general concerns voiced at this meeting included: child safety, health, traffic congestion, quality of life, the local ecology and the possible structural damage to existing homes. Out of this meeting came the universal question "what does the city or even our community gain from this development?" Our community is fortunate to have many children of the formative age. One of our concerns is the retaining wall planned at between 8' - 14' high to separate existing homes from the new development. With the wall just 25' away from existing homes there is a very high potential for accidents to occur. For example, kids will naturally gravitate to the retaining walls and view it as a object to play around. What safeguards is the developer offering to protect our children? Also there is concern with the retaining wall falling as happened in Bloomington during the super storm of 1987. Many expressed concerns about who will fix it and be accountable for its upkeep. Association maintenance fees have not proven effective in this area. There are concerns about health regarding the "Sedimentation Pond" a.k.a. Retention Pool. Stagnant water is a natural breeding ground for mosquitoes. The Lacrosse Meningitis outbreak was traced back to mosquitoes bred in retention pools in Lacrosse Wisconsin. In addition, concerns were raised about the possibility of raising the water table in the Egret Court cul-de-sac where all homes have experienced problems with either water in their basements or severely cracked floors and foundations. The proposed development will result in four (4) driveways within a 1/2 mile and contribute to what is becoming a traffic safety issue. Once the High School is built on Pioneer Trail and the Byerly's construction is complete in town, County Rd. 17 will become a high traffic thoroughfare with the additional driveways adding to the congestion. Many residents chose lots specifically for the picturesque view it afforded of nature and the local wildlife. There is concern that what is currently a view of trees, wildflowers and wildlife will become a view of either a retaining wall or the rear of someone's dwelling. These dwellings should become a part of the natural setting and not detract from it. There is consensus the excavation method proposed could compromise the structural integrity of the homes located above the proposed development. The removal of such a large quantity of earth so close to the existing homes will cause shifting of foundations, resulting in cracks in floors and foundation walls. Who should the residents hold accountable? What steps are Jasper Development taking to ensure this doesn't happen? The residents feel if there is to be development of this land the planning commission should ensure development is done correctly to the benefit of the community and not just the expediency of the developer. Along with the concerns the residents offer the following recommendations: . Decrease the number of units to prevent densification and traffic congestion. . Increase the value of the units to promote stability within the development. . Expand and utilize the retention pond northeast of Lake Susan Hill Drive and County Road 17 to service this development. . Require more "Green Space"- preserve wooded area and as much nature as possible. . Require berms with trees and shrubs instead of retaining walls with fencing. . Require maintenance free exterior. . Institute the same maintenance guidelines and covenants that apply to Lake Susan Hills West. . Provide additional recreational space for Powers Place and Lake Susan Hills West so residents are not forced to cross County Road 17 to use available recreational facilities. In conclusion, we look forward to the September 7 Planning Commission meeting at which we intend to pursue this matter further. Lake Susan Hills West Community PN:SL ATT: Lake Susan Hills Community Petition Lake Susan Hills West Community NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER k-� Jqj (7 C eincv] <44f r�ret Cf , 3(A-tet 5ci4 r1 $N4)1 � ref C .3 35,3 0 114juee gq2 I tfre. .-5/1- 3& F-35 2-6 yk. 1. 51 L( Su sa i 1--4111 v 3 - &1 co c., 1.s-s/ , -ela YY7- 5G�'� TELEPHONE DISCUSSION NOTES MONTGOMERY WATSON Subject: /j//t �2i ,4 ' f//22 Gv�s'T�OM/*',—irr 4 i /2-76 ✓ Discussion: /1/1/' E ,i&yZ , .. S / v� _ �i //1_(4/,S„,,-iy— 157//11 /yes,..,-e, C1 yY -__-3 .), -- P� -+��A%. \) t . 45fi,IPip gs oo m e a,,,„- e- 3 y7 5-- -to out., -toouh t oha Jac cLsor\ S ( Mer3n a- C# - ay3 -21001 E+ J q i ti C L ,-- E-1/4)k1),3 is« 44 A E 5 c_z3,F,v4 f/ ke Y 7 5-7.: � �& e eia0Q& /5a/ 4z. .Susa,, Cl(5 Lr . 368 -y 32-1 arFF 24 i gy4/ PE</c,g.o WF - GyO7 4-1`f,�m l•(�, j 1 l VY1 S 15 31 LK. Susan /-1:Ps Or cH e= 1 W S v. 4 .' ?c ,.;� Z,- �< (R C \ / 50x, • ,(c 5 r g— WV R1' t- Piei'a, 1581 ! ,Saw U3 tr. % - LOS !ir//7.. A - rA.) :21 -ea . : - .046 PvAkiN SoutvAlvrtlAC. +Ti Ado/ L' sccsa., h,JJr 3ci- 9139 6 r am l irri . l5-51 c__ sz4 s.t,-i /41,7/ /J.- 3C - c/3 CQ tjSc1,,,e dQr 12-30 2-likE sus r+rL-4-s Dr- 3(08'- 33,47 p«, / (- / 2 , , j/— 2k, a78-s‘6$ U 0cg6 ?)-)Or�� c i s 7//,9, e Svs9, f�`G 6J 511419-74,--f Ciall" CI' r-CV- ar% V626,C- /50( LK Sc44J-1 746//c fir. y Sig -6 9s0 P 3g ^ Js� JERC R , EL 1 H � \ SUSAN H�.L_S t R 3(.0S- 31 W I C� L\ � kc D n,eY r\ma e-f e . - 9-_q i `/cm e..Co ,_.-- le der I Sl l.aKe.J 5use, , pais D 3(�8"- 33g7 Th rj gc letA SS`fS I PPLcc..k c -+- Montgomery Watson Party Other Party Project Name: Company Name: Project No.: Billable? Yes, No Address: Employee Name: Phone No. ( ) Date: Time: Person Name: Call Placed by: Montgomery Watson Other Party GO-60 Lake Susan Hills West Community NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER i‘. .-1/. 4 ://.4-4,i_jf,./.7.4.-, rt ,� l'itt' T\�ti " lG��\1::/ ��q �b Pai"'c -, 6,t. 4-` 4 - ("c) `r 'I 4q - 77 ce- Idsik-71-1 -6 727, R-4.1 ' - BG 3 O r.4 Yl / / �1 I..� -- 1 sv 2, k, S,s�... A J Is 11. ?6<, - 7 .4/7 (-----;( , ,, 19‹1, 7,1--r-f__ �lr cry\ I 0 kort, aivi (-hlL Pr . r, `,P `t V1 CITY OF 0,0 , -011CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner H FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer . "/6.,/- - DATE: ;—DATE: August 30, 1994 SUBJ: Powers Place - Jasper Development Corporation - LUR File 94-19 Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings dated August 1, 1994 and prepared by Rehder and Associates, Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS The City's Wetland inventory identifies one ag/urban wetland on the northern boundary of the property. This wetland has been significantly altered, however, the wetland should not be impacted further without proper mitigation. There is another low lying area in the middle of the site that was identified on the national wetlands inventory map that should be investigated too. The applicant should have a qualified wetland's delineator investigate the property and stake all existing wetlands on-site. These areas should be included on the grading and drainage plan. Buffer Strip A buffer strip is required around all wetlands in the City. 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 is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 2 Alteration/Mitigation The city recommends that the applicant first try to avoid impacts to wetlands. If avoidance is not possible, the applicant will have to follow the rules of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), the city's Wetland Ordinance, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The city administers the WCA and the city's ordinance. The Army Corps of Engineers administers the Clean Water Act. If mitigation is necessary, it may be possible to coordinate mitigation activities with the Powers Boulevard reconstruction project. Keep in mind that half of the mitigation may be purchased in the city's wetland restoration bank that is being established as part of the road project. The other half of the required mitigation has to be replaced in upland. This area should be on-site or purchased. The farther away the purchased land for mitigation, the more mitigation that is required. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The city has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post-developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-development and post-development conditions for 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre- developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre- developed and post-developed conditions. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 21/-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 3 Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a user fee for water quality systems. Dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be waived. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a user fee for different land uses based on average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Multi- family medium-density developments will have a fee of$2,975 per acre. Less wetland areas, the proposed development of acres of multi-family residential would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $28,857.00. The city will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, land dedication, etc. DRAINAGE The SWMP shows a utilized storm water pond along the northern boundary which qualifies as an existing wetland. It is recommended that this degraded basin be used as a storm water pond and the wetland be mitigated for off-site. If this is not possible, the wetland should be protected from further degradation and all storm water pretreated with a sediment trap prior to discharge into the wetland. The SWMP also shows a storm water quality basin in the general vicinity where their northerly access is proposed. This basin is necessary as part of this site development as well as containing off site runoff from the Lake Susan Hills development as well as possibly Powers Boulevard. The existing 24" storm sewer underneath Powers Boulevard has been extended and upgraded in conjunction with Joe Miller's Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition. In addition, Joe Miller's development constructed NURP basins to pretreat the runoff from this development and others prior to discharging into the wetlands downstream. This water quantity basin is important to maintain a desired level of flood protection for the area. It may be possible to relocate this proposed basin area with the existing wetland to the north and the whole system controlled by a storm sewer outlet and pipe system to the wetland in Joe Miller's development. The applicant has met with staff to discuss this possibility; however, the applicant needs to address this further with their engineer to see if it would be feasible. Individual catch basins are proposed within the private street for conveyance of storm water to the pond located in the northerly portion of Sharmin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 4 the site. The calculations shall use the 10 year 24 hour storm event for storm sewer sizing. The pond shall be sized in accordance with the city's Surface Water Management Plan. Any additional ponding area provided outside the required amount for this development will be credited back against the applicant's SWMP fees. The applicant is proposing drainage swales to convey runoff from a portion of the streets into the county ditch. This will require a permit from the Carver County Highway Department. It should be pointed out that at this stage, Carver County is working with BRW in preparing detailed construction plans for the upgrade and widening of Powers Boulevard to an urban street section. This work will also include installation of storm sewers which will pick up the runoff from the proposed streets. Staff recommends that prior to final platting, the applicant and his engineer should meet with the city, county and BRW to discuss the specifics on pond design and access to the site. GRADING The site is almost entirely associated with steep slopes and is difficult to develop without extensive site grading. In addition, with the lot configuration it is difficult to expand the grading limits to soften the slopes. The applicant is proposing the use of retaining walls to minimize grading and combine construction limits to within the property limits. The applicant has suggested potentially staggering the walls to reduce the height. As proposed, the retaining walls range from 8' to 14' in height. Staff is also concerned with the height of these walls from a safety standpoint. Building codes require engineered drawings of retaining walls in excess of 5' in height. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and met with the applicant and shared the concerns with regard to the amount of site grading, retaining walls, and the row effect of building units along Powers Boulevard. Staff suggested, at a minimum, to rearrange Lots 1-8, Block 1 parallel to one another and slide the units to the east to minimize grading and tree loss. Staff also recommended that the northerly cul-de-sac be shifted to offset to the east, similar to the southerly cul-de-sac bubble, in an effort to pull the units down off the hill side. This may result in the loss of a unit. Staff also suggested an alternative, in an effort to break up the row house effect along Powers Boulevard, by placing the private driveway closer to Powers Boulevard and meandering the street and placing all the units to the west of the private driveway. This would provide for adequate screening along Powers Boulevard and break up the row effect of houses adjacent to Powers Boulevard. In addition, we believe it would not cause any more grading and in fact would most likely reduce the amount of grading and slopes to the west. The applicant expressed concerns that they would be losing desirable walk-out type units along Powers Boulevard, not to mention the loss of a number of units and anticipated equal amount of grading. With the anticipated lot grading into the side of the hill, it is most likely subsurface drainage will be exposed and need to be dealt with by means of drain tile and/or storm sewers. The applicant Sharmin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 5 should be prepared to install minimum drain tiles along the perimeters of the retaining walls as well as behind the curb of the private streets for the individual units to discharge their sump pump into. Installation of retaining walls along the wooded area will require tie backs into the bank as high as the retaining wall is. For example, if the retaining wall is 9' high, the limits of construction will extend 9' back from the base of the wall. This will involve additional tree loss which may not have been anticipated by the applicant. EROSION CONTROL In conversations with the applicant's engineer, erosion control measures were inadvertently left off the grading plan at this time. Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorporated on the grading and drainage plan and submitted to the city for review and approval prior to construction. Staff also recommends that the applicant use the city's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to prevent erosion. The catch basins prior to the first lift of asphalt shall be protected by means of hay bales or silt fence. UTILITIES The site is easily serviced by sanitary sewer and water service from along Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer and water service along the private driveway to service the individual units. Since the streets will be private, the utility installation, maintenance and ownership will also be private. All utility lines shall be installed in conformance with the city's latest edition of standards, specifications and detailed plates. The city's Building Department will be monitoring the inspection and permit issuance for the utility installation portion of the project. Fire hydrant layout shall be in accordance with the city's Fire Marshal's recommendations. STREETS Access to the site is proposed in two locations from Powers Boulevard (CR 17). Since Powers Boulevard is a county road, Carver County Highway Department has jurisdiction on access points. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Powers Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial (Class II). The required right-of-way for this type of street system is 100 feet. The right-of-way as shown on the plans indicates a 150 foot corridor which is more than adequate for an urban 4 lane roadway system. Carver County Public Works Department has contracted with BRW for design services for the upgrading and widening of Powers Boulevard. The plans are in a very preliminary stage at this point. The proposed access points have not been approved by Carver County. Safety concerns such as sight distance will be looked at to Sharmin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 6 determine whether or not a full access can be provided or the access points be limited to a right in/right out only on Powers Boulevard. In any case, the applicant shall be required to construct the driveway approaches to be compatible with the future widening and upgrading of County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard). The city has received a memo from Carver County regarding their concerns on this development which has been related in the staff report (see attached). MISCELLANEOUS The landscape plan provided by the applicant shows numerous plantings and bermings within the city's drainage and utility easement adjacent to Powers Boulevard. This area needs to be maintained free and clear around the city manholes, fire hydrants and gate valves from a maintenance standpoint. The applicant may work with staff in redesigning a landscape and berming plan that would be compatible with the city's maintenance responsibilities. Landscaping within the drainage and utility easement would be subject to an encroachment agreement whereby the city would not be responsible for replacing any landscape materials that may be lost due to the result of maintenance of the city's infrastructures. EASEMENTS The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as storm water ponding areas. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 2. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. Issuance of permits and inspection of the utility lines will be performed by the city's Sharmin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 7 Building Department. Streets and utilities, except the ponding areas, storm sewer outlet and pipe systems, shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. 4. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 5. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 6. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 7. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the state Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Highway Department, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 10. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units. 11. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall Sharmin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 8 be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 12. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way or utility and drainage easements without approval by the city and the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement. 13. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 14. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The pond(s) shall be sized in accordance to the city's Surface Water Management Plan. 15. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. 16. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. 17. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 18. Prior to final platting, the applicant, county and city shall meet to discuss/resolve the specifics on pond design and access to the site. 19. The plat should be redesigned as follows: a. The northerly cul-de-sac shifted to offset to the east. b. The street system realigned to provide meandering streetscape. c. Realign Lots 1-8, Block 1 parallel to one another and slide the westerly units (Lots 3-6, Block 1) east. d. Remove those lot lines which encroach upon the 25 foot building setback line. e. Street access points shall be compatible with the future widening and upgrading of Powers Boulevard. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITY OF 11111010111! 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 Official4.0.\<, DATE: August 22 , 1994 SUBJECT: 87-3 PUD & 94-7 SPR (Powers Place, Jasper Development) I was asked to review the preliminary plat for the proposed Powers Place plat stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; AUG 02, 1994; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " Analysis: Street names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department . Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. Building setbacks. The building code requires that walls of single family dwellings within three feet of the property line be of one-hour fire-resistive construction with no openings. The building code further requires that projections (overhangs) within three feet of the property line be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. Walls and overhangs shown on the submitted plans will be within three feet of the property line and will not meet code requirements. Property lines should be adjusted so that each pair of lots is 74 feet wide, thereby enabling either model to be constructed as shown (windows in end walls and six inch overhangs) on any lot. Otherwise the proposed buildings could be downsized to achieve the same effect. Recommendations: 1 . Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 2 . Adjust property lines and/or buildings to enable compliance with 1988 UBC 504 (b) , table 5-A and 1710. This should be done prior to final plat approval. g:\safety\sak.\memos\plan\powrsplc.sj1 0 i0 ovilr.---- 690 COULTER DRIVE •(612)P.O.937-1900 BOX 14•7FA•X CHANHASSENOF(612) 937-5739, MINNESOTA 55317 CITY MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: August 10, 1994 SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills Drive - Powers Place Jasper Development Planning Case 87-3 PUD and 94-7 Site Plan Review I have reviewed the site plan for complying with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, and have the following code or policy requirements: 1. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new "T" intersection. The remaining fire hydrants shall be relocated with equal spacing. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. 2. Submit new street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 3. A twenty foot wide fire lane must be maintained on the new proposed north/south street. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on both sides of the street with 75 foot spacing. Chanhassen Fire Prevention Policy 06-1991. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF POWERS PLACE THIS DECLARATION, made this day of , 1994, by Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, Inc . , a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter called "Declarant" ) , and (hereinafter called "Bank" ) , a Minnesota corporation, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property described in Article II, Section 1, of this Declaration and desires to create thereon a residential neighborhood with permanent open spaces and other common amenities 4for the benefit of said neighborhood; and WHEREAS, Declarant caused the incorporation of Powers Place Townhouse Associati. e. under the laws of the State of Minnesota as a non-profit co ation, which shall own the Common Area and to which shall be - , ' gned the powers and duties of maintaining the Common Area an. ertain other portions of the property, administering and e'•.rcing the covenants and restrictions herein, and collecting S. : disbursing the assessments and charges herein created. WHEREAS, Bank holds a mortgage on the Apbject property and for the purpose of passing clear title does( ereby join in this Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that the real property described in Article II, Section 1, hereof and such additions thereto as may hereafter be made pursuant to Article II, Section 2, hereof, shall be held, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the following covenants, restrictions, easements, charges and liens, which are for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of, and shall run with, the real property, and which shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the described properties or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each Owner thereof . 1 ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS The following words when used in this Declaration or any Supplementary Declaration shall have the following meanings : Section 1 . "Association" shall mean Powers Place Townhouse Association. Section 2 . "Common Area" shall mean of Powers Place, according to the recorded plat thereof and such additional areas which may be designated as Common Area and is made subject to this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions . Section 3 . "Common Expenses " shall mean expenses of the Association for maintenance, repair, operation, management and enforcement; expenses declared common expenses by the provisions of this Declaration; and all sums lawfully assessed against the Lots by the Board of Directors of the Association. Section 4 . "Decant" shall mean Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, aesota corporation, and its successors and assigns if such successo44, or assigns should acquire more than one undeveloped Lot for the4ose of development. Section 5 . "First Mortgag " shall mean any person owning a mortgage on any Lot, which mort. o a is first in priority upon foreclosure to all other mortgages . ich may affect such Lot. 9 Section 6 . "Unit" shall mean a i6j upon which a dwelling has been constructed. Section 7 . "Member" shall mean a Mer of the Association as provided in Article III hereof. Section 8 . "Owner" shall mean the record Owner, whether one or more persons, or entities of title to any Lot subject to this Declaration, including contract for deed vendors and vendees, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. Section 9 . "Property" shall mean the real property described in Article II, Section 1, hereof, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be brought within the jurisdiction of the Association. Section 10 . "Lot" shall mean of Powers Place, according to the plat thereof and such additional areas which may be designated as Lot(s ) and is made subject to this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions . 2 ARTICLE II PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS DECLARATION Section 1 . Existing Property. The real property which is and shall be held, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to this Declaration is located in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver and State of Minnesota, and is legally described as follows : ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS IN THE ASSOCIATION Section 1 . Members . All Owners of Units shall automatically by virtue of such interest be Members of the Association. When more than one person is an • .er of a Unit, all such persons shall be Members . It shall be th=f •uty of each Owner to register his name and the nature of his iterest with the Secretary of the Association. If an Owner fails ' register his name or interest, the Association shall be under no*ty to recognize his ownership. s Section 2 . Voting. The Assocation shall have two classes of voting membership: J:0 ti Class A. Class A Member(s) sh64 be all Owners, with the exception of the Declarant, who shall-')De entitled to one vote for each Unit owned. When more tha's one person holds an g interest in any Unit, all such persons ll be Members . The vote for such Unit shall be exercised as hey determine, but in no event shall more than one vote be cast with respect to any Unit. Class B. The Class B Member(s) shall be the Declarant who shall be entitled to three ( 3) votes for each Unit owned. The Class B membership shall cease and be converted to Class A membership on the happening of either of the following events, whichever occurs earlier: (a) when the total votes outstanding in the Class A membership equals or exceeds the total votes outstanding in the Class B membership, or 3 (b) on the expiration of three ( 3) years from and after the date of execution of this Declaration. Section 3 . Transfer of Membership. Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership of a Unit. The share of a Member in the funds and assets of the Association cannot be assigned, pledged, encumbered or transferred in any manner, except as an appurtenance to his Unit. ARTICLE IV PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE COMMON AREA Section 1 . Members ' _Easements of Enjoyment . Every Member shall have the following rights and nonexclusive appurtenant easements over and across the Common Area for the following purposes : 49 (a) Ingress and eg*ss including the right to use the private streets•' pcated within the Common Area. (b) Parking in designatpki areas . `. (c) Utilities, water and 'sewer. (d) Enjoyment for recreational, purposes . d G,y Every Member shall also have an exclusive ', ppurtenant easement over the Common Area for the use and enjoyment of the sidewalk, steps and entry way adjacent to his Lot. Section 2 . Title and Improvements to the Common Area. The Declarant shall convey and record marketable title to the Common Area to the Association prior to the conveyance of fee title to any Unit . The Declarant covenants and agrees with the Association that it will make and pay for all improvements on the Common Area as set forth in the plans and specifications on file with the Association, and delivery of the deed to the Common Area shall not constitute a release of Declarant from the obligation to perform such work. Upon the Declarant having fulfilled its obligation to improve the Common Area, the Association shall file in the office of the County Recorder a release of the Declarant. Until the Declarant has completed the work as set forth in said plans and specifications, the Declarant shall have the right to enter and to store materials and equipment upon the Common Area for the purpose of completing such work. 4 Section 3 . Extent of Members ' Easements . The rights and easements of enjoyment described herein and the title of the Association to the Common Area shall be subject to the following: (a) The right of the Association, in accordance with its Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws, to borrow money for capital improvements on the Common Area, and in aid thereof to mortgage the Common Area. The rights of any such mortgagees in the Common Area shall be subordinate to the rights of the Members hereunder. No indebtedness authorized by this paragraph shall exceed twice the sum of the annual assessment levied against all Units . No such mortgage shall be given or other encumbrance of the Common Area permitted unless first approved in writing by the Owners and First Mortgagees representing seventy-five percent (75%) of the Lots . (b) The right of the Association to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect the Common Area against foreclosure. (c) The righof the Association to suspend the enjoyment rights of and Member for any period not to exceed sixty ( 60 ) days and tol mpose a fine not to exceed Ten Dollars ( $10 . 00) for each infraction of its published rules and regulations . Nothin42, contained in this paragraph, however, shall be deemed t , deny an Owner easements for access and utility purposes . furthermore, any such fine may not exceed $50 . 00 for all consec1, ive infractions arising out of the same violation of publish4 rules and regulations of this Declaration. 0FS (d) The right of the Associate•►. to charge reasonable admission and other fees for the use .%/..the Common Area. (e) The right of the Owner of each Unit to an exclusive appurtenant easement over the Common Area for areas occupied by bay windows, roof overhangs, air conditioning compressors, flower boxes and other appurtenances which are part of the original construction of any Unit or which are added pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of Article VI hereof . ( f) The right of the Association to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority or utility for such purposes and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to by the Members . No such dedication or transfer shall be effective unless first approved in writing by the Owners and First Mortgagees of one hundred percent ( 100%) of the Units . Nothing herein shall preclude the Board of Directors of the Association from granting access to the Common Area on a temporary, non- exclusive basis to any public agency, authority, utility or 5 cable television company for construction, maintenance or repair of any utility delivery system. Section 4 . Delegation of Use. Any Owner may delegate, in accordance with the By-Laws, his right of enjoyment to the Common Area to his tenants who reside on the Property and to Members of his family and his guests . Section 5 . Taxes and Special Assessments on the Common Area. The Association shall have the right, power and authority to collect taxes and special assessments levied against the Common Area as part of the annual assessment, if such taxes and special assessments are not collected by the governmental body from the Owners or paid by the Owners to the governmental body when the same are due and payable. Section 6 . Use of the Common Area. The Common Area shall be used strictly in accordance with the easements granted thereon. Except as herein provided, no Owner shall obstruct or interfere with the rights and privileges of other Owners in the Common Area, Ot and nothing shall be planted altered, constructed upon or removed by an Owner from the Common ea except by prior written consent of the Association. If an 9r shall violate this Section, the Association shall have the rightqlio restore the Common Area to its prior condition and assess the cothereof against the Owner who violates this Section, and such cosshall become a lien upon the Unit of such Owner which is due arf > ayable upon demand. The Association shall have the same right(' nd powers to collect the cost of such restoration as provided inicle VII hereof for the collection of delinquent annual assesnts . If any Owner interferes with the right and privileges d r,another Owner in the use of the Common Area, except as provided hin, the Association or the Owner may commence an action to enjoiri4uch interference, and the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover such reasonable attorneys ' fees as the court may allow, together with all necessary costs and disbursements incurred in connection therewith. ARTICLE V RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION Section 1 . Common Area Maintenance. The Association shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair and for the exclusive management and control of the Common Area and the Lots and all exterior improvements thereon, and shall keep the same in good, clean, attractive and sanitary condition. The Common Area and lot improvements shall be deemed to include such things as streets, parking areas, driveways, sidewalks, trees, flowers and shrubs, patios and decks, and docks; together with all lines, pipes, wires , conduits, systems, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, irrigation lines or other utilities which are installed on 6 or across the Common Area or the Lots . The Association, or its contractor, shall have the right to enter upon the Lots to perform the maintenance and repair outlined herein. Section 2 . Exterior Maintenance. The Association shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the exterior surfaces of each Unit, including painting, repair, replacement and care for roofs, gutters and downspouts, exterior building surfaces, overhangs and other exterior improvements . Such responsibility for exterior maintenance shall not extend to glass surfaces or doors, screens or screen doors, or exterior door or window fixtures . Section 3 . Incidental Damage. The Association shall be responsible for the repair of all incidental damage caused to a Unit or Lot by any maintenance, repair, alteration or improvements of the Common Area or the exterior surfaces of the homes performed by or with the authority of the Association. C, Section 4 . Services . *p the extent it deems advisable, the Association may obtain and pa ,for the services of any person or entity to manage its affairs, to fulfill its obligations hereunder, or to enforce this 'Declaration or the By-Laws . The Association may arrange with ers to furnish water, trash collection, sewer service, and oth common services to each Lot. -& Section 5 . Personal Property; for Common Use. The Association may acquire and hold for t*Ouse of all of the Members tangible and intangible personal propertSs and may dispose of the same by sale or otherwise. Every Member 4 use such property in accordance with the purpose for which it • intended and without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful rights of other Members . Section 6 . Rules and Regulations . The Association may make reasonable rules and regulations governing the use of the Lots and the Common Area, which rules and regulations shall be consistent with the rights and duties established in this Declaration. Section 7 . Access at Reasonable Hours . For the purpose of performing the Common Area and exterior maintenance authorized by this Article, the Association, acting through its duly authorized agents or employees , shall have the right after reasonable notice to the Owner to enter upon any Lot at reasonable hours of the day. 7 ARTICLE VI OBLIGATIONS OF 'riu OWNERS Section 1 . Architectural Control . From and after the completion of construction and sale of any Lot, no building, fence, wall or other structure shall be commenced, erected or maintained upon the Property, nor shall any modification to the exterior of any Unit, whether to the structure or appearance thereof, be made until the plans and specifications showing the nature, kind, shape, height, materials and location of the same shall have been submitted to and approved in writing as to harmony of external design and location in relation to surrounding structures and topography by the Association or by an architectural committee composed of three or more representatives appointed by the Association. The Association or the architectural committee shall not approve any alterations or structural modifications which would jeopardize or impair the soundness , safety or appearance of the Property. In the event the Association fails to approve or disapprove such design and location within thirty ( *) days after said plans and specifications have been subniited to it, approval will not be required and this Article sham, be deemed to have been fully complied with. The prevailing pty in an action brought by the Association pursuant to this Section shall be entitled to recover from the other party reasonable atneys ' fees together with all necessary costs and disbursemenincurred in connection therewith. J!% Section 2 . Use of Lots . EacI4Lot shall be used for residential Unit purposes only, except th4 the Declarant shall be entitled to maintain model townhousesthe Property. No structure of a temporary character, traile ,tent, shack, or other building shall be used on any Lot or the Coon Area at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permane ly. No improvement or structure whatsoever, other than single-family dwellings or garages or other structure appurtenant to a Home and approved as provided in Section 1 of this Article may be erected, placed or maintained. No noxious or offensive activities shall be carried on upon any Lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or a nuisance to the neighborhood. Section 3 . Use of the Units . The Units shall not be rented by the Owners thereof for transient or hotel purposes, which shall be defined as rental for any period of less than thirty (30) days . Each Owner shall otherwise have the absolute right to lease his Unit, provided that any lease is made subject to this Declaration and the By-Laws of the Association. No Owner shall subdivide any Unit or sell or lease only a part of a Unit. 8 Section 4 . Interior Maintenance. Every Owner shall maintain and keep in repair the interior of his Unit. Every Owner shall perform promptly all maintenance and repair work within his Unit which, if omitted, would adversely affect the Property in its entirety or in part belonging to other Owners or to the Association, being expressly responsible for any damage or liability that his failure to do so may cause. Every Owner shall be deemed to own and shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of all lines, pipes, wires , conduits, systems or other utilities, together with the fixtures and equipment served or supplied thereby, which are installed within his Unit or upon his Lot, commencing at the point where such utilities enter upon his Lot. Section 5 . Responsibility for Misuse and Negligence. In the event that the need for maintenance or repair of the Common Area and improvements thereon or the exterior surfaces of any Unit is caused by the misuse or negligence of an Owner, his family, guests , tenants or invyitees , the cost of such maintenance or repair shall be asses*A against such Owner. Such cost shall become a lien upon the , of such Owner which is due and payable on demand, and the Assoction shall have the same right and powers to collect the amoufit so assessed as provided in Article VII for the collection of deiquent annual assessments . `C ,,c, VII 2 ASSESSMOITS en Section 1 . Creation of the Li4 and Personal Obligation of Assessments . The Declarant for each 'Tp, owned hereby covenants, and each Owner of any Lot by accepte of a deed therefor, whether or not it shall be so expressed in such deed, is deemed to covenant and agree to pay to the Association ( 1) annual assessments or charges and (2 ) special assessments for capital improvements, such assessments to be established and collected as hereinafter provided. The annual and special assessments, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys ' fees, shall be a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon the Lot against which each such assessment is made. Each such assessment, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys ' fees, shall also be the personal obligation of the person who was the Owner of such Lot at the time when the assessment fell due. The personal obligation for delinquent assessments shall not pass to his successors in title unless expressly assumed by them. Section 2 . Use of Assessments . The assessments shall be used exclusively for the benefit of the Owners, to promote the health, safety and welfare of the Owners, to preserve, protect and enhance the value of the Property, and to ensure the enjoyment of rights, privileges and easements with respect to the Common Area. 9 Section 3 . Method of Levying Annual Assessments . Annual assessments against the Lots for Common Expenses shall be levied by a majority vote of the Board of Directors of the Association. The Board of Directors shall fix the amount of the annual assessment against each Lot at least thirty ( 30) days in advance of each annual assessment period and send written notice thereof to every Owner. All Units shall be assessed equally. The annual assessments shall be due and payable in monthly installments on such dates as are established by the Board of Directors . If an annual assessment is not timely made, there shall be an assessment in the amount, installments, and on the due dates of the last prior annual assessment . The Board of Directors may require each Owner to deposit and maintain with the Board of Directors an amount equal to one quarterly estimated annual assessment for use as working capital . Section 4 . Commencement and Maximum Amount of Annual Assessments . The annual assessments herein authorized shall commence, as provided here'n as to all Lots on the first day of the third month following onveyance of the Common Area to the Association. Until January ' of the year following the conveyance of the first Unit to an Owner 1 he maximum annual assessment shall be $ per Lot on wrq5h there is a Unit which has been issued a certificate of occupant , G (a) At the time each U on which has been awarded a certificate of occupancy is so by Declarant the Purchaser (Owner) shall pay a capitalizatiOp fee to the Association of $ ,o O� (b) The Declarant shall, afte± he commencement of the obligation to pay assessments, pay Ap the Association for each Unit which has not been awarded a certificate of occupancy reduced monthly assessment payments in the amount of 25% of full monthly assessment payments . No assessments are due for vacant Lots . (c) The Declarant shall pay full monthly assessment payments as to each Unit which has been awarded a certificate of occupancy but has not been conveyed to a purchaser. (d) From and after January 1 of the year immediately following the conveyance of the first Unit to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment may be increased each year not more than 5% or a percentage equal to the increase for the immediately preceding year in the Consumer Price Index established by the United States Department of Labor for the Minneapolis area, whichever of said percentages is greater, above the maximum assessment for the previous year without an affirmative vote of a majority of the membership approving such an increase . 10 Section 5 . Reserves and Surplus . Annual assessments for Common Expenses shall include an allocation to maintain an adequate Replacement Reserve Fund for maintenance, repair and replacement of those elements of the Common Area and the exterior surfaces of the Units that must be repaired or replaced on a periodic basis . Such elements include, by way of example and without limitation, roadways and driveways, sidewalks, roofs, common utility lines, decks and outdoor lighting systems . In addition, the Board of Directors may establish and fund as part of the annual assessments a General Operating Reserve to provide a measure of financial stability during periods of special stress and to be used to meet deficiencies as a result of delinquent payments and other contingencies . The Association shall not be obligated to apply any such surplus to the reduction of the annual assessments in the succeeding year, but may carry forward such surplus from year to year as the Board of Directors may determine to be desirable for the greater financial security and the effectuation of the purposes of the Association. Section 6 . Special Assessments . In addition to annual assessments, the Board of Directors may levy special assessments for the purpose of defr�e + ng, in whole or in part, the cost of any construction or reconst tion, unexpected repair or replacement of capital improvements ou the Common Area, exterior surfaces of Units, or utility lines s¢ ng more than one Lot. Any such assessment, however, shall t be approved by a vote of Owners representing seventy-five perit ( 75% ) of the Units at a meeting duly called for such purpose, 44itten notice of which shall be sent to all Owners at least thir ¢,( 30) days in advance. G Section 7 . Uniform Rate of AVessments . Both annual and special assessments shall be fixed . ►fit a uniform rate for all Units . Section 8 . Record of Assessments .'? The assessments against all Units shall be set forth on a roll �f the Units kept by the Secretary of the Association and available for inspection at reasonable times by any Owner or his authorized representative. Such roll shall indicate for each Unit the name and address of the Owners, the assessments levied for all purposes, and the amounts of all assessments paid and unpaid. Section 9 . Delinquent Assessments : Interest and Liens . Any assessment or installment thereof not paid within ten ( 10) days after becoming due shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent ( 8% ) per annum from the date when due until paid. All sums assessed by the Association but unpaid for the share of Common Expenses chargeable to any Unit shall constitute a lien on such Unit commencing on the due date of the assessment and prior to all other liens except only tax liens and liens for special assessments on the Unit in favor of any taxing and assessing unit of government and all sums unpaid on a first mortgage of record. 11 The sale or transfer of any Unit shall not affect the assessment lien. However, the sale or transfer of any Unit pursuant to foreclosure of any first mortgage shall extinguish the lien of such assessments as to payments which become due prior to the foreclosure sale and transfer. Any such unpaid assessments shall thereupon be spread over and become a lien on all Units in equal shares . No foreclosure sale or transfer shall relieve any Unit from liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof . A lien for assessments may be foreclosed by suit by the Board of Directors of the Association in like manner as foreclosure by action of a mortgage on real property. The Board of Directors shall have the power to convey the Unit so acquired. In addition, the Association shall have the right to pursue any other remedy at law or in equity against any Owner who fails to pay any assessment or charges against his Unit. Section 10 . Ineffectiveness of Waiver or Abandonment. No Owner may exempt himsel96from liability for contribution toward the Common Expenses by wgver of the use or enjoyment of any of the Common Area, by waiver lqr protest of the need for maintenance or repair of exterior surfas of any Home, or by abandonment of his Unit. ARTICLE VIII INSURANCE. Ji. Section 1 . Casualty Insurance on insurable Common Area. The Association shall keep all insurable improvements and fixtures of the Common Area insured against loss or 'damage by fire for the full insurance replacement cost thereof, and may obtain insurance against such other hazards and casualties as the Association may deem desirable . The Association may also insure any other property whether real or personal, owned by the Association, against loss or damage by fire and such other hazards as the Association may deem desirable, with the Association as the owner and beneficiary of such insurance. The insurance coverage with respect to the Common Area shall be written in the name of, and the proceeds thereof shall be payable to the Association. Insurance proceeds shall be used by the Association for the repair or replacement of the property for which the insurance was carried. Premiums for all insurance carried by the Association are Common Expenses included in the assessments made by the Association. In addition to casualty insurance on the Common Area, the Association, through the Board of Directors, may elect to obtain and continue in effect, on behalf of all Owners , adequate blanket casualty and fire insurance in such form as the Board of Directors deem appropriate in an amount equal to the full replacement value, without deduction for depreciation or coinsurance, of all of the Dwelling Units, including the structural portions and fixtures 12 thereof, owned by such Owners . Insurance premiums from any such blanket insurance coverage, and any other insurance premiums paid by the Association shall be a Common Expense of the Association to be included in the regular assessments of the Owners, as levied by the Association, but such assessments for insurance premiums shall not be subject to the limits on percentage increases recited in Article VII hereof . The insurance coverage with respect to the Dwelling Units shall be written in the name of, and the proceeds thereof shall be payable to the Association as Trustee for the Homeowners . Section 2 . Public Liability and Other Insurance. (a) The Association shall carry public liability insurance with one or more reputable insurance companies in minimum amounts of $1,000, 000 . 00 for any one occurrence in connection with the Property and in aggregate of $1, 000, 000 . 00 in conneOpion with the Property. (b) The Associathall carry fidelity insurance with a reputable insurance c6ip any covering the acts of its Officers, Directors and Emp4 any with a limit of $50,000 . 00 for any one occurrence . �C'G Section 3 . Replacement or Repa of Property. In the event of damage to or destruction of any' .art of the Common Area improvements, the Association shall re%4; ' r or replace the same from the insurance proceeds available. IJ,Auch insurance proceeds are insufficient to cover the costs of repkirs or replacement of the property damaged or destroyed, the AsI c iation may make a reconstruction assessment against all Lot Cfwners to cover the additional cost of repair or replacement not covered by the insurance proceeds, in addition to any other common assessments made against such Unit Owner. In the event that the Association is maintaining blanket casualty and fire insurance on the Units on the Lots in the Properties, the Association shall repair or replace the same from the insurance proceeds available. Section 4 . Annual Review of Policies . Ail insurance policies shall be reviewed at least annually by the Board of Directors in order to ascertain whether the coverage contained in the policies is sufficient to make any necessary repairs or replacement of the property which may have been damaged or destroyed. Section 5 . Waivers of Subrogation. All policies of physical damage insurance shall contain waivers of subrogation and waivers of any reduction of the pro-rata liability of the insurer as a result of any insurance carried by Owners or of invalidity arising from any acts of the insured or any Owners . Provisions shall be 13 made for issuance of certificates of physical damage insurance to mortgagees . Section 6 . Notices to FNMA and FHLMC. All policies of physical damage, fidelity and comprehensive liability insurance maintained by the Association shall provide that the policies shall not be cancelled or substantially modified without at least thirty ( 30 ) days ' prior written notice to the Federal National Mortgage Association ( "FNMA" ) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ( "FHLMC" ) , all of the insureds and all First Mortgagees of record. The Association agrees to notify FNMA and FHLMC in writing whenever damage to the Common Area exceeds Ten Thousand Dollars ( $10, 000) from a single occurrence, or whenever damage with resp to any Unit covered by a mortgage purchased in whole or in itairt by FNMA or FHLMC exceeds One Thousand Dollars ( $1 , 000 . 00) . ' Section 7 . Individual Owne . Insurance. Insurance coverage on the furnishings and other per*pfial property belonging to an Owner and casualty and public liabil y insurance coverage within each Unit shall be the responsibility',of the Owner thereof. Each Owner may obtain insurance at his own cpense providing coverage on his personal property and for his perGnal liability, provided that any such policy shall contain a�iaiver of subrogation comparable to that referred to in Section 549.f this Article. Each Owner may obtain additional fire and extended coverage insurance at his own expense on his Unit, provided that any such policy shall provide that it shall be without contribution as against the fire and extended coverage insurance maintained by the Association. If a casualty loss is sustained and there is a reduction in the amount of the proceeds which would otherwise be payable on the insurance maintained by the Association due to proration of insurance purchased by any Owner, such Owner agrees to assign the proceeds of this latter insurance, to the extent of the amount of such reduction, to the Association to be distributed as hereinafter provided, and such Owner shall be liable to the Association to the extent of any such diminution or loss of proceeds . ARTICLE IX RECONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR Section 1 . Casualty. In the event of damage or destruction by casualty to any part of the property subject to this Declaration, the determination of whether or not to reconstruct or repair the same shall be made as follows : (a) Any portion of the Common Area which is damaged or destroyed by a casualty otherwise not affecting the Units shall be restored to substantially the same condition which existed prior to such casualty. If insurance proceeds are 14 insufficient to pay the costs of such restoration, the Board of Directors shall levy a special assessment as provided in Section 6 of Article VII hereof to meet the costs thereof which assessment shall be fixed at a uniform rate for all Lots . (b) If a Unit is damaged or destroyed by a casualty it shall be restored by the Owner to substantially the same condition which existed prior to such casualty. If insurance proceeds are insufficient to pay the costs of such restoration or reconstruction, then the Owner shall be responsible for the difference needed to complete such restoration or reconstruction, except that in the event such loss is covered by blanket casualty insurance carried by the Association as provided in Section 1 and 2 of Article VIII, then the Board of Direc, rs shall levy a special assessment to meet such deficiency '` costs, which assessment shall be fixed at a uniform rate f all Lots . (c) Partial destruct , which shall mean damage or destruction which renders leq�-- than sixty percent ( 60%) of the Units, collectively, unf4 for occupancy, shall be reconstructed or repaired unless` his Declaration is revoked within ninety (90 ) days after the' ate of such casualty. (d) Total destruction, whichAczhall mean destruction which renders sixty percent ( 60%) or<g1ore of the Homes and Garages, collectively, unfit for occiTancy, shall not be reconstructed or repaired unless at a special meeting of the Members which shall be called within ninety ( 90) days after the date of such casualty or if by such date the insurance loss has not been fully adjusted, then within thirty ( 30) days thereafter, Owners representing eighty percent ( 80% ) or more of the Units vote in favor of such reconstruction or repair. Immediately after a casualty causing damage to the Property, the Board of Directors shall obtain reliable and detailed estimates of the cost to restore the damaged property to substantially the same condition which existed prior to such casualty. If the proceeds of insurance are insufficient to pay the estimated cost of restoration of the Property, or, if at any time during reconstruction or repair or upon the completion thereof, the funds for payment of the cost of restoration are insufficient, the Board of Directors shall levy a special assessment against all Lots for that portion of the deficiency related to damage to the Common Area and against individual Lots for that portion of the deficiency related to damage to the particular Unit constructed thereon. If the cost of the restoration of the Property is less than the insurance proceeds received by the Association, the Board of Directors shall pay the balance remaining to the Owners and their First Mortgagees, as their interest may appear. The 15 Association and any contractors or other persons engaged on its behalf in reconstruction or repair shall have temporary easements in and over the Lots, Units and Common Area to allow such work to be completed. In the event of reconstruction or repair of damage to any part of the Property, all Owners agree that minor encroachments on parts of the Common Area or on adjacent Lots shall be permitted and that a valid easement for said encroachment and the maintenance thereof shall exist. Section 2 . Condemnation. In the event of taking by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, or by an action or deed in lieu thereof, of all or part of the Property, the monies awarded shall be used and the obligation to rebuild shall be determined in a manner subsntially similar to a case involving damage or destruction by castiOty. ARTT 4 E X PARTY itj),T,S d; Section 1 . General Rules of La Ito Apply. Each wall which is built as a part of the original construction of the Units upon the Property and placed on the dividing line between the Lots shall constitute a party wall, and to the ,extent not inconsistent with the provisions of this Article, the„general rules of law regarding party walls and liability for pi'9perty damage due to negligent or willful acts or omissions shall apply thereto . Section 2 . Sharing of Repair and Maintenance. The cost of reasonable repair and maintenance of a party wall shall be shared by the Owners who make use of the wall in proportion to such use. Section 3 . Destruction by Fire or Other Casualty. If a party wall is destroyed or damaged by fire or other casualty, either Owner who has used the wall may restore it, and if the other Owner thereafter makes use of the wall, he shall contribute to the cost of restoration thereof in proportion to such use, without prejudice, however, to the right of any such Owner to call for a larger contribution from the other under any rule of law regarding liability for negligent or willful acts or omissions . Section 4 . Weatherproofing. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article, an Owner who by his negligent or willful act causes the party wall to be exposed to the elements shall bear the whole cost of furnishing the necessary protection against such elements . Section 5 . Right to Contribution Runs with Land. The right of any Owner to contribution from any other Owner under this Article shall be appurtenant to the land and shall pass to such Owner's successors in title. 16 Section 6 . Arbitration. In the event of any dispute arising concerning a party wall or under the provisions of this Article, each party shall choose one arbitrator, and such arbitrators shall choose one additional arbitrator, and the decision of a majority of all arbitrators shall be final and conclusive on the question involved. ARTICLE XI MUTUAL EASEMENTS The title to each Lot shall include an exclusive appurtenant easement over and across the adjoining Lot or Common Area for encroachments created by construction, settling and overhangs for all Units originally constructed by the Declarant or improvements which are added pursuant to Section 1 of Article VI hereof. A valid easement for said encroachments and for the maintenance thereof, so long as such encroachments stand, shall and does exist upon each Lot in favor of the adjoining Lot or Lots . AlpI CLE X I I RIGHTS OF WRST MORTGAGEES d/n For the protection of First`prtgagees and their assigns, the following provisions shall talo'}, precedence over any other conflicting provisions of this Declgation: A Section 1 . Notification of DefauIt. A First Mortgagee, upon request, shall be entitled to writtei notification from the Association of any default in the perfor' nance by an Owner of any obligation under the Declaration or the By17,aws which is not cured within sixty ( 60) days . Section 2 . Exemption from Right of First Refusal. Any First Mortgagee that obtains title to a Unit by foreclosure of the mortgage, by deed or assignment in lieu of foreclosure, or pursuant to the remedies provided in the mortgage, shall be exempt from any right of first refusal contained in the Declaration or By-Laws . Section 3 . Liability for Assessments . Any First Mortgagee that obtains title to a Unit pursuant to the remedies provided in the mortgage or by foreclosure of the mortgage will not be liable for such Unit's unpaid assessments or charges which accrue prior to the acquisition of title to such Lot by the First Mortgagee. Section 4 . Books and Records . First Mortgagees shall have the right to examine the books and records of the Association. Section 5 . Approval of Certain Acts . Unless at least seventy-five percent (75% ) of the First Mortgagees of Units, based 17 upon one vote for each first mortgage owned, or 75% of Owners other than the Declarant have given their prior written approval, the Association shall not be entitled to: (a) By act or omission seek to abandon, partition, subdivide, encumber, sell or transfer the Common Area. (The granting of easements for public utilities or for other public purposes consistent with the intended use of the Common Area by the Owners shall not be deemed a transfer within the meaning of this clause. ) (b) Change the method of determining the obligations, assessments, dues or other charges which may be levied against an Owner. (c) By act or omission change, waive or abandon any scheme of regulations, or enforcement thereof, pertaining to the architectural design or the exterior appearance of the Units, the exterior maintenance of Units, the maintenance of party walls or common fences and driveways, or the upkeep of lawns and plantings on the ) roperty. } (d) Fail to maintai3 , fire and extended coverage insurance on insurable Common 'Ageas and property on a current replacement cost basis in an amoils t not less than one hundred percent ( 100% ) of the insurab value (based on current replacement cost) . J'1% (e) use hazard insurance prodveds for losses to the Property for other than repair, replacement or reconstruction of such Property. Section 6 . Liens . All taxes, assessmentt`,and charges which may become liens prior to the first mortgage under Minnesota law shall relate only to the individual Units and not to the Property as a whole. Section 7 . Reserves . Assessments for Common Expenses shall include an adequate reserve fund for maintenance, repairs, and replacement of those common elements that must be replaced on a periodic basis . Such routine and foreseeable assessments shall be payable in regular installments rather than by special assessment. Section 8 . No Priority Over First Mortgagees . No provision of the Declaration or By-Laws shall be construed as giving to any Owner or to any other party priority over any rights of First Mortgagees of Units pursuant to their mortgages in the case of a distribution to Owners of insurance proceeds or condemnation awards for losses to or a taking of Units or the Common Area, or both. 18 Section 9 . Contract Terms . The term of any agreement for professional management of the Property, or any other contract providing for services of the Declarant, may not exceed two (2 ) years . Any such agreement shall provide for termination by either party without cause and without payment of a termination fee upon ninety ( 90) days ' prior written notice. ARTICLE XIII ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS Section 1 . Declarant Rights . Notwithstanding any provision of the Declaration or By-Laws to the contrary, the Declarant may operate and maintain upon the property during the period of construction and sale of the Units such facilities as may be reasonably required or convenient to the construction and sale of the Units , including without limitation a business office, storage area, construction yards, signs , model units and sales office, and shall have easements for access to and enjoyment and use of such facilities for itself, its employees, agent and prospective purchasers . O Section 2 . Keeping of; Animals . No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be tpised, bred or kept on any Lot or in any Unit, except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept, provided they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose. The Association may adopt reasonable rules and regulations governing the kee*kg of pets . Section 3 . Signs . No sign of arid* kind shall be displayed to the public view on any Lot or in the C2mnon Area, except that the Declarant shall be permitted to erect and maintain upon the Property such signs as it deems appro iriate to advertise the development until the Declarant conveys the last Unit. Section 5 . Miscellaneous . All sporting equipment, toys, and other equipment and supplies necessary or convenient to residential living shall be enclosed or shall be screened from view. No boats or recreational vehicles shall be stored by an Owner unless stored inside a garage. In addition, no television or radio antenna shall be erected or placed on the exterior of any Unit. ARTICLE XIV GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1 . Duration and Binding Effect. The easements created hereby shall be permanent and the covenants and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall run with and bind the land and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Association or any Owner, their respective legal 19 representatives , heirs, successors and assigns, for a term of twenty ( 20) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which time said covenants and restrictions shall be automatically renewed for successive periods of ten ( 10) years . Section 2 . Amendment. This Declaration shall not be amended or revoked unless at least seventy-five percent ( 75%) of the Owners agree to such amendment or revocation. Section 3 . Enforcement. Enforcement of these covenants and restrictions shall be by any proceeding at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant or restriction, either to restrain such violation or to recover damages, and against the land to enforce any lien created by these covenants . Failure by the Association or any Owner to enforce any covnant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deem a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. lx, Og Section 4 . Notices . Any idktice required to be given to any Member or Owner under the proviss of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been properly giv . when personally delivered or when mailed postpaid to the last knniwn address of the person who appears as Member or Owner on the records of the Association at the time of such notice. Section 5 . Severability. In the event that any provision of this Declaration shall be held invalid or?, unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. Section 6 . Singular and Plural; Gender; Joint and Several Obligations . When required by the context of this Declaration, the singular shall include the plural, or vice versa, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine or neutral gender. Any obligations of the Owners or Members shall be joint and several except where the context clearly requires otherwise. Section 7 . Governing Law. This Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this Declaration the day and year first above written. JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF WACONIA, INC. a Minnesota Corporation By: James E. Jasper Its : President °6'9 '<\�, a °mss By ,a •C,L Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss . G-, COUNTY OF CARVER ) Kik The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1994 by James E. Jasper, known to me to be the President of Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public 21 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss . COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1994 by , the of , a , on behalf of said Notary Public 46 4�,' (k, cG s, THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: /CA, Melchert, Hubert, Sjodin & Willemssen 121 West Main Street PO Box 150 c5p Waconia, Minnesota 55387 (rlh) V4 ( 612 ) 442-5155 1st draft 8/1/94 U/trish/powers 22 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Jasper Development Corp of Waconia OWNER: ADDRESS: 235 W 1St Street ADDRESS: Waconia, MN 55387 TELEPHONE (Day time) 442-5611 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review X Notification Signs $100 + $50 = $150.00 9. x Site Plan Review $250.00 + $5 x 50 X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost** $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP - $500.00 $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. x Subdivision $400.00 + $15 X 50 TOTAL FEE $ 1800.00 = S1150.00 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. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ` NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. • Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Powers Place LOCATION West Side of Powers Blvd @ Lake Susan Hi] 1 s Dr;vP LEGAL DESCRIPTION Attached PRESENT ZONING R-8 REQUESTED ZONING No Change PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Medium Density Residential REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Same REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Intended platting of townhouse pro iect 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. / #'•�4 tt > ,j(0,(;�� f/e s• 8-1-94 Signatur 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. mi6V9•1 �1n \s J 1100%4P A- All tot.m.iltilin NOTICE OF PUBLIC ,$* ittiL HEARING St/PARA PLANNING COMMISSION = .�,. • .-= ;;,r,� MEETING "�" .;1„ '��N!�'1 � �� LAKE SUSAN Wednesday, SEPTEMBER 7, 1994su3 _ RD ..i. sof : z ar. at 7:30 p.m. l' MN.w.. !". ,:�� .. City Hall Council Chambers ; . ;a:1111*�.t, a: l, it ell:gr apt • 690 Coulter Drive , - • s i ......, . 1 .a - Project: Powers Place 4 mi,J . " Developer: Jasper Development • /P „, --' '440 . , I�.1 r. Location: South of Lake Susan ' (' c"NA PARKA • Hills Drive, West of 011_0Q yb •/ F Powers Boulevard Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing the preliminary plat of 9.7 acres into 50 lot single family twin homes and site plan review for 25 structures located on property zoned PUD and located west of Powers Boulevard, just south of Lake Susan Hills Drive, Powers Place, Jasper Development Corporation. 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 August 25, 1994. Jasper Development Corp. Patrick & Wendy Nelson Joseph M. & Jane E. Miller 235 1st St. W. 8411 Egret Ct. 8421 Egret Ct. Waconia, MN 55387 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bernardino. Jr. & L. Lanzi Mark A. & Julie A. Goeman Joseph M. & Jane E. Miller 8431 Egret Ct. 8441 Egret Ct. 8421 Egret Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kenneth & Michelle Deforest Joseph Miller Construction Inc. John B. & Ann M Sichak 8430 Egret Ct. 3459 Washington Dr. 1251 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eagan, MN 55122 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Moune & Sompong Khakham Donald L. Hunter Arthur M. & Arlene C. 1261 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1271 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1281 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Stephen P. Neurerer Richard R. & Brenda Nelson 1301 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Michael P. & J. Smithson 1291 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 1311 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Scott C. & Julie A. Bergquist Joseph T. Treleven & Kurt G. & Kelly H. Vondebur 1321 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Lisa G. Williams 1341 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 1331 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jon A. Nyland John L. & Amy M. Goedert John C. & Maureen Jensen 1351 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1361 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 8480 Pelican Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Timothy C. & Barbara Larson Kevin & J. Roquette Thomas & Nancy Martinson 8470 Pelican Ct. 8460 Pelican Ct. 8450 Pelican Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gary C. & Sharon D. Condit Terry W. & Barbara A. Bolen Jeffrey J. & Merrilee Zahn 8440 Pelican Ct. 8451 Pelican Ct. 8461 Pelican Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Darryl & Alicia Laube Scott E. & Marica Boutilier Wade & Yvonne Schneider 8471 Pelican Ct. 8481 Pelican Ct. 1230 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Hamid R. Hoodeh Kirk Sampson Patricia M. Lewis 1240 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1250 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1260 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard I. & Jeanne L Derby Robert J. Crawford John M. & Kay M. Polster 1270 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1280 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1290 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Michael & Gina Hamari Roger A. Lesser Peter A. & Melissa Sattervall 1420 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1430 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1440 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mark F. & Renee C. Dawson Char A. Jeurissen Kwok Wong & Lu Lee Ng 1450 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1421 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 8550 Merganser Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Patrick & Beth Victorian Thomas & Cheryl Rasmussen Douglas & Ramona Jacobson 8530 Merganser Ct. 8531 Merganser Ct. 8551 Merganser Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jerome & Mary Gen Reutzel Craig M. & Janet L. Cariveau Nathan & Elizabeth Jenkins 1481 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1501 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1511 Lake Susan Hills Dr Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David L. & Donna J. Clough John & Pamela Williams Bruce & Shirley Bowman 1521 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1531 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1541 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas M. Bums & Ronald E. & Bonnie Ziebell Chad W. & Carla Sedlacek Julie M. Kreger 1561 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1560 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 2551 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Todd M. & Karen Bimberg Thomas & Joyce I. Mancino Erik M. & Alicia C. Johnson 1460 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1470 Lake Susan Hills Dr. W. 1480 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Joseph R. Hoope & Neil R. & Mary Spieker Gene Richard Meier Deanne M. Schuler 8550 Tern Ct. 8570 Tern Ct. 8530 Tern Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eric 0. & Michelle K. Ross Brian & Darlene Fredrickson Robert B. & Cheryl J. Ruby 8571 Tern Ct. 8551 Tern Ct. 1520 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David Leslie Wasson David & Nancy Obermeyer Robert & Christi Nordby 8789 Flamingo Dr. 8787 Flamingo Dr. 8640 Kingfisher Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Timothy M. & Lois M. Vold David & Tammy Dehne Mark William & Kerry Engel 8620 Kingfisher Ct. 8551 Flamingo Dr. 8561 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Douglas & Lavonne Becker Erik Boden Pedersen & Todd E. & Sally M. Bergum 8571 Flamingo Dr. Rosemarie O'Donnell 8591 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 8581 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Timothy J. & Linda A. Kosir Lonny L. & Norine Remund Argus Development Inc. 8780 Flamingo Dr. 8772 Flamingo Dr. Suite 204 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 3459 Washington Dr. Eagan, MN 55122 Christopher J. Sones & James H. & Teresa 0. Giusti David M. & Julia A. Wise Judith A. Martinez 8750 Flamingo Dr. 8746 Flamingo Dr. 8756 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Philip A. & Gayleen J. Jessen Dan D. & Lisa L. Boyum James M. & Debra K. Wilhm 8779 Flamingo Dr. 8771 Flamingo Dr. 8763 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Argus Development Inc. Daniel W. & Barbara R. Hoff Karl A. & Susan L. Meier 18133 Cedar Ave. S. 1120 Dove Ct. 1130 Dove Ct. Farmington, MN 55024 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Donald Diamond Jr. & Bobby Rogers & Wayne M. & Roberta J. Foner Amabelle Y M Diamond Loleta Tolliver-Rogers 1581 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1131 Dove Ct. 1571 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Daniel E. & Ronda S. Pierre Pheavanh & H. Souvannalath Duane H. & Karen Anderson 1591 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1601 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1570 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert D. & Robin Hajicek James R. & Catherine S. Scott Philip D. Jensen 1574 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1578 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1580 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Todd R. Loader Sreang & Sophom Song Bang Joseph Gibney Jr. & 1584 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1590 Lake Susan Hills Karen Stein Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1594 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kounthone & 0. Souvannakane Lake Susan Hills Corey J. & Ruth Weikle 1600 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Suite 200 8744 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 7600 Parklawn Ave. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edina, MN 55435 Gregory D. & Shireen Kahler 8742 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director DATE: August 31, 1994 SUBJ: Report from Director On August 22, 1994, the City Council took the following actions: 1. Tabled action on the second and final reading of the BF, Fringe Business district section of the City Code to allow additional permitted, conditional and interim uses. 2. Approval of the second and final reading of the code amendment for the city wide application of "bluff." 3. Tabled action on the request for an interim use permit to allow screened outdoor storage in the BF, Fringe Business District and located at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard, Admiral Waste Management. 4. Tabled action on the preliminary plat to subdivide 46.5 acres into 36 rural single family lots and one outlot, Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates, located south of County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail), and west and east of Highway 101 (Great Plains Blvd.), Don Halla. The council requested a legal opinion on 2.5 acre lot size time frame for development. 5. Discuss concept of Entertainment Complex, Redevelopment of the Chanhassen Bowl Facility, Lotus Realty, The council concurred with the commission's request to have an architect review the facade design and application. 6. Approved first reading of an amendment to the zoning ordinance, City Code Section 20-1181(b)(4) regarding interior landscaping for vehicular use areas. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION Memo from Fred Hoisington regarding status of Pedestrian Bridge Memo from Tom Scott regarding gifts to public officials Article in May/June, 1994 Utne Reader about "New Urbanism" 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt FROM: Fred Hoisington DATE: August 18, 1994 RE: Pedestrian Bridge I received a call from Larry Erickson on 8-17-94 regarding the status of the Pedestrian Bridge. He thought the delay was attributable to a flaw in the right-away certificate but found today that MnDot is simply backlogged in ISTEA projects and hasn't completed its review. As near as he can tell, based on what MnDot is telling us, the project will be let in late October or early November. Probably construction will not occur until 1995. Since we have all been concerned about the funding commitment, Larry asked the question and received an answer that funding will in no way be jeopardized by the delay. It is MnDot's fault that the project is not moving ahead on schedule. FLH/mm • MEMORANDUM TO: CHANHASSEN MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF FROM: THOMAS M. SCOTT CAMPBELL, K UTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. DATE: AUGUST 22, 1994 RE: GIFTS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS The following is a summary of the law that went into effect August 1, 1994, that bans most "gifts" to City Council members and City employees. Violation of the law is a criminal misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $700.00 and ninety (90) days in jail. A copy of the law is enclosed. The law states: "An interested person may not give a gift or request another to give a gift to a local official. A local official may not accept a gift from an interested person." The meaning of the law is contained in the definition of the key terms. An "interested person" is anyone that has a financial interest in a decision that the City is authorized to make. "Interested person" includes consultants, developers, City employees, anyone who has a matter pending before the City or who expects to have a matter pending before the City. The League of Minnesota Cities suggests that everyone who lives in the City is an "interested person". I think that interpretation goes too far. "Local official" means the City Council, advisory committee members, and City employees who have significant responsibility for making decisions, not simply for carrying out decisions. Because this is so nebulous, the safe course is to assume that all City employees are "local officials". "Gifts" means money, property, services, loans, or promises of employment. The following, however, are not gifts: • campaign contributions • services to assist in performance of official duties • services of insignificant value • plaques • trinkets or mementos of insignificant value • informational material of insignificant value • food or beverage given in connection with a speech • gifts to groups of nonofficials • gifts by family members Perhaps the best way to understand the law is by answering a few commonly asked questions: Q. Can an "interested person" buy me lunch? A. No. However, if you take turns buying lunch, that is acceptable. Q. Can an "interested person" pay for a round of golf for me? A. No. If you take turns paying, that is acceptable. Q. Is there an exception for gifts under $5.00? A. No. An earlier draft of the bill had the exception, but it was deleted. You can accept "trinkets or mementos of insignificant value." What value is "insignificant" is not defined by the statute. According to the drafter of the legislation, you can accept cheap pins, calendars, pens. You are probably safe if the value is under $2.00. Q. Can the City Manager pay for the Mayor's lunch? A. Since the Mayor can affect the salary of the Manager, the answer is no, unless they take turns buying. TMS:srn Enclosure :- �j1\ 1r,fi•r:national material of _.'.eNcc:acro) \'a:.:i: Cr • tiLt 0(1 or a beverage c'—age ren ata -(...r•tiC•:1. :'.Ea). cr ...ert:-z a'•\ey from the recinie nt's r •, e of ..york by 2n oreani_aticn .._!c �+hc•:-1 the nee a-.t a'.-•:•Ears t0 make 2 speech Cr ..}. arKNcr C..Cctions as part of a L•rCCc71- 0 ) The prohibitions in this sectii. co not artily if the gift is given: (1) because of the recir•ier.t's me-:E-5hio in a ct-u.n,a rr21cr:V of\:-hose :nernbers are not Officials. and an ecui\•alert gift is given :o the other members cf the group: or : (2) by a lobbyist or orincinal who is a ember of the family of the recipient. unless the gift is given on behalf of someone who is not a member of that family. : 4 Sec. 6. t' ! \' GIFTS $Y IN c DFncnNS PROHIBITED. Su i.ision DEFI\IT u. .•,-.. •a. ire de'nitions in :his s. a:ortrc:v :o ::.;s section. - . \ (b) "Gift." has I.: ..eaninz ci\•en it in section IQA M71. subdivision 1. v (C) "Interested person' means 7s a DEr$on cr a representative of a person or 2ssac:a:;on that . ' - • has a direct financial interest in 2 cccisi0n that a local official is authorized t0 make. .. (d) "Local official" means an elec:ed or appointed Official of a county or city or of an _ agency. authority. or instrumentality c•f 2 county Or city. - •_ - -- Subd. 2. PROHIBITION. ?-r r.-rested Person may not ei\'e a gift or rem:est another to t ' '' :'c --} give a gift to a local official. A.local C cial may not accept a oft from an interested person. r--=-: --• '' •;•: :; Subd. 3. EXCEPTIONS. ( The s } - '' "� ''`" a) rC:ibitiGns i:1 this section do not apply if the eft is: r : tib .._ _i �,-a 11AQ1. :::,.---_:,-1-----,-%-. (1) 2 COrit::blli]On as defined :-1 sc..`Cn L s"bdi\'2siGn J: •, `- --r .._ -. •- 1 (2) services t0 assist an official in the performance of official duties. including but not '-?----.:.-: -.-i--"--.....,-4....,.._s �y,' - _ Isated t0 providing advice. 's' -r' i, _ .' ' _ - z ice. cc. .:,tai .fc at:en. a. 'ith _ : -_:_ and co-',unicat.en n connection ,� :- z ;... wry legislation. and ser',ices t0 cC-sti ::en . -:4'„:r+� • xy=',• . (3) services of'-siE iffca-t tic-c.a.. \•a1..e: •,-,....,::„...- ',- * 'rte:¢i..%� _ tea: . i -' "•4 Additions ate irci:s'ed .y c rerlire; deletions y ''-'1 ..-..t g;• : ;•r,*-::•' :=. - -FeWf .ff .. ::: —S •.r_ - - - - _ ♦qac 1994 REGULAR SESSION - Ch. 379, § 1 - (4) a rlaoue or s`^,oar memento rCCCC ::'t individual services ::t afield Of si ccia:t\•C4•to a charitable cause: -- ... - - (5) a trinket or memerto of :psis-r:ca-t \•a]ue; (6) informaticr.al rratel:al of ur.•excer-acral value: cr -- :. (7) food or a beverage riven at a re:e:2ca, meal, cr meeting ay.-ay from the recipient's place of stork by an orcznination before -X-C:71 the recipient acDEars to make a speech or • answer ouest±ons 25 part of a program. ' - (b) The prohibitions in this section Co Lot apply if the rift is riven: (1) because of the recipient's members hio in a group. a majority of whose members are not. local officia]s, and an eota\•alert gift is £\•tit to the ether members of the croup: or (2) by an interested person\\•ho is a member of the family of the recipient.unless the gift is -- given on behalf of someone who is nota member of that family;. Presented to the governor March l8, l PE;. .Approved \'a-ch 22, 1999. • ci:it—rs•n":•t'+<";;;•k,- 2•?]i}>a_ :V+s.?f.,it.re 1N s1�Li :at1-•'_'•.y - - .. - •Lir. _t T `sksy:•;,w. .7.i;x, CHAPTER 378 -` . H.F. \o. 1956 .r;. acr _ - AN ACT relating to loco, go%crnrnen:; authorizing the public library systems of the courts;,•:'' •:-.-;•:;.'1:- Anoka and and the city of Anoka :o merge and :he county to provide library services for. ,r. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE ST4TE OF '-'.ESOT•?: Section 1. COL\TY PROVISION OF PUBLIC LIBRARY SERV :..a'� • Notwithstanding '.;innesota Statutes. sc..:car 334.0.9. the city f-'G` sa shall discontinue _ provision cf library service and the cot.-:•, if Arc'-:a cl'2l) assn ,".Dorsibilit' for provision of library service to the residents of the citof AnGk a ef:ec•',•'r`—/".,uary I, 1995. in accordance - 16,-. , •. • ., . __ _• AP .. Progressive Architecture(Dec. 1993), T IIE NEW URBANISM struggles in a recent editorial to make sense of this tops}-tun} debate.which seems to go like this:An establishment 1 �S HOLD steeped in avant-garde modernist rhet- 'TA t" I I otic and"the nihilistic individualism Anti-suburb architects are finally getting some respect of the romantic rebellion"is also deep- ! p 1y conservative and resists young ar- i chitects who,while they idealistically ntellectuals may not have the sub- of all ages;is no wider than a quarter seek to change society through de- I• urbs to kick around much longer. mile—a distance one can walk in five sign—the original modernist aim— • A growing number of planners minutes;has an interconnecting net- accept the balanced order of classical 1 and architects have devoted themselves work of streets providing multiple architecture both as a style and"as a - w to creating necommunity space that ways to move around;and gives priori- progressive political idea." Fisher " is dense.diverse.and convenient—in a ty to public space and public build- concludes that "what is important .1 word. urban. This alternative move- ings. Seaside is a compact,pedestrian- about the new towns is not the style of ment.generically called the New Ur- friendly,walkable village similar to the their architecture,but the quality of i banism. has embroiled the staid archi- traditional small town. It's a well-rea- life they offer. . . .To see the new ur- ••Y I tectural establishment in bitter debate soned assault on our car-based mod- banism simpl as a return to the past `_ -. I for the past decade. Suddenly it seems ernist culture. is to be fooled by appearances.The -5 = - to have won intellectual acceptance in Although it is wildly popular with new towns may look old-fashioned.but _?' ( j the citadels of architectural power. the public,Seaside has been damned they may be better tuned than any oth- - + { The battle was fought in an unlike- by the architectural establishment as a er urban-design model to the coming _ j ly arena:Seaside,Florida,an 80-acre romantic,Disney-like exercise in nos- electronically driven global economy. - village along Florida's"Redneck Rivi- talgia,a"manufactured,controlled, Ironically,as the computer eliminates fry era."which was developed by the vi- ersatz public realm."writes David barriers of time and space,the need for sionary Robert Davis and designed by Mohney in Architecture Ne% York rootedness in a place seems to grow." the Miami architectural firm of An- (July/Aug. 1993),summing up the de- The modernist establishment, for dres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zy- bate."Leading academic architects all its ranting about nostalgia and Dis- berk.Seaside is unlike conventional have denounced it for using'obsolete, neyization,has failed to notice the suburban developments in that it has discredited forms'instead of envision- nostalgia inherent in its own romantic both a center and definite edges;has a ing and designing for a new society," obsession with individual will,and is balanced mix of shops,workplaces, Mohney notes. blind to the reality that the New Ur- recreation,and dwellings for residents I Thomas Fisher.executive editor of banism is rooted not in style,but in /tea. ., �-• the growing desire for community. -.6. .. ~i, 4::;......,....".c:'.400-... -.-,';:-'''--‘-;:-‘- ;' -'" This insight was well articulated by ar- r.= ! -sA. -.... - -- _ chitectural historian Vincent Scully in - _ - his afterword to The Nen Urbanism: . _ - = ``'". Toward an Architecture of Community �;. •� , , -.. (McGraw-Hill, 1994): "Architecture is lit '.v^.1. t- , = fundamentally a matter not of individ- ual buildings but of the shaping of , __� _ _ community." � � Yet even as the debate goes on,im- • `. 11, , portant powers in the mainstream have = ti- accepted this former fringe movement. The upcoming ninth edition of Ar- ' " -,. ---- -- I chitectural Graphic Standards(John • • Wiley 8:.Sons),the standard desk ref- "�� • _ erence for architects,includes a code i lig �- • -----,w,-. _r.11 for new development called the tradi- 1 L. f�,.+ -- _ tional neighborhood development or- 'b,f�- - . .� [ C,- _ _ dinance. "Planners are not prepared t i ,;. ". �" � to be re-educated, but they are accus- 'I it t_- I ss t�- �, r��- •.+r toned to following the law,"Duany -• .- f--_,,- .'f,J -- ___4„...__ I i • j has written. "It is thus possible,by . !! _ - ` ~ , -�K.' " '_ _ *� I_' �I modifying these codes,to prescribe a T ? 1 � �" — _ _ mss• �,-,, _.,f � •-. .: � "'� �- .:-.....i.------,----- - more workable and rational urban- `: �g�M�_ ' ism." Suburbans ravel is not an acci p r " dent,but the logical outcome of zon- 1? I Building community:Neo-traditional architecture,like this development planned near Madison, ing and building codes. Change the Wisconsin,designed in the Prairie School style,Is gaining acceptance in the building industry, codes and you change the suburbs. _ More than mere fashion,this new architectural movement nurtures community. Sympathetic transportation engi- 4 28 One Reader•May/June 1994 • -fix -._ ire(Dec. 1993), neers are writing a similar set of stan- ditorial to make SHED 1}{A1 DIVES YOU 1HE dards for the"Green Book"used by - • SE ry debate,which highway engineers,standards based on CREAT AREIA71 GET THE An establishment ry�1MACY AND tNDE�NDE modernist rhet- the simple but radical premise that individualism "street space is shared space"and I_do ion"is also deep- should work for pedestrians and bicy- 1V sists young ar- clists as well as motorists. ey idealistically IFINI7 There is also a bushel basketful of Ur- through de- 1 new books written by leading New demisaim— A• merican thinkers,among them The Next1 WAIsTT -der of classical American Metropolis(Princeton Ar- Couples today bade the style and"as a chitectural Press, 1993)by Peter pressure of dual careers, lea." Fisher Calthorpe and Rebuilding(Princeton :s important Architectural Press. 1992)by Daniel financial competition,and Solomon,while Peter Katz's textbook s not the style of sexual politics everyday. the quality of The New Urbanism,a survey of theory ..,-• Resonance—eat• the new ur- and projects,will help shape the next urn too the past generation of architecture students relationship model for sarances.The The New Urbanists are also politi- the 90s—offers call in vogue,their reformist idealism �+ powerful and practical d-fashioned,but meshing perfectly with the sensibilities E S s sustain passion .d than any oth- of the Clinton good-government types. R J O •VE to the coming CHEMISTRY OF to economy. Bill Clinton dedicated the town hall in TME NEW CHEM • and commitment, Iter eliminates the Peter Calthorpe designed town of BARBARA AAl►lER FISHMAhI,PK against the odds,for a Laguna West in Sacramento County, WiiH LAURIE ASHNER lifetime."An innovative ice,the need for California.and Calthorpe is currently description of a relationship ems to grow." helping HUD design"empowerment Iblishment,for couples can aspire to." •stalgia and Dizones in low-income neighborhoods snotice the But what's most important is that fit: HarperSanFrancisco —Hartiille Hendrix oNew Urbanist ideas are percolating "i�"om �„a,� ' ''" Hardcover• $20.00 s own romantic into the housing marketplace,thanks to _ .Ial will.and is Seaside's financial success Even arch- • • the New Ur- conservative Builder magazine(Feb. style.but in 1994)featured Seaside clone Beachwalk 1 ommunity' in Michigan City.Indiana,a project Is Your Money -ticulated by ar- that focuses on the nostalgia of white ncent Scully in picket fences instead of challenging the Where Your lie art Is? ew Urbanism: suburban monoculture at a deeper lev- of Cammunit} el.but shows how the movement is pen- Architecture is etrating mainstream culture. • not of individ- It is important to invest !`l Working Assets has six sham of While the New Urbanists consoli your money in companies mutual fund portio p g i date their intellectual triumph,a wide that have proven them- . hos to meet a range range of actual neighborhoods based to goes on,irn- 1 selves to be responsible of investment airstream have I on the movement's tenets are under both financially and , objectives. construction across the country:Kent socially. It is importantis •IRAS,403B7 Plans, ige movement. lands in Gaithersburg,Maryland; for you and it is impor- and Automatic t edition of Ar- Windsor in Indian River County, tant for the world. Investment programs ►dards(John Florida:Laguna West in Sacramento At Working Assets are available. dard desk ref- County,California. Hundreds of oth- Common Holdings we invest •Our minimum inves- :ludes a code er developments are on the boards or your money in companies that are tment is$250. Iled the tradi- winding their way through the zoning successful,stable, and have a posi- Please call us for a no-obligation velopment or- E bureaucracies,including a Prairie-style tive history of caring for people and prospectus with complete details not prepared s community to be located just outside the planet. of fees and expenses. Please read ley are arcus- ; Madison,Wisconsin. •Working Assets is one of the old- it carefully before you invest or aw,"Duany = est and largest socially responsible send money. Architects are also applying the possible. by < ; principles of the New Urbanism to the mutual fund families in the US. o prescribe a complex task of reconstructingexist- 800-223-7010 anal urban- p Secure the future with socially s ing suburban strips in Miami,inner- �� responsible investing. is not an asci- E city neighborhoods in Cleveland,and 0 downtown cores in Providence,Rhode Change the W(RKNG ASSETS* e suburbs Island,and elsewhere. And in a verita- sub n engi- ble assault upon the mountain,archi- COMMON HOLDINGS ,rtatiotects and planners are collaborating to ill tine street•sanFrancisco.G 94111 01993.Dtst ibtrted by%xi mg Assets Cipnal Management 11111E1 HMV'1 I May/lune 1994•One Reader 29 : — _ redesign downtown Los Angeles. the New Urbanism's dense communi- t Enough projects will be built with- ties reproduce the stultif in small- by esGof peopleel, "and it matched data- in the decade to answer some critical town-style Conformit that intellectu- bases of who owed money to questions: Are Americans willing to als damned in the l920s? the government with other databases drive less and walk more? Will the of people who got money from the exchange prnacv for community? } govern- ing,don't sell your car yet. communi- men employeomis- government. es who had defaulted on I Can neighborhood merchants survive ty is slow to build. After all,it took student loans and welfare in this nation of megamalls? Can de- fifty years to create this s rawlin recipients sign help slow spiraling crime rates p J with large unearned and unreported mess. It will take fifty more for the incomes." and social decay? And.most impor- New Urbanism to make it habitable. sant,what is the dark underbelly.of Saving the public from moochers this new orthodoxy?For example,will —Robert thugs has been an effective excuse GerlofjI for whittling away everyone's personal privacy. The White House has been • 1 L 1 B E R T 1 E g _ pressing for computer makers to in- (I corporate"Clipper chips"in their ma- chines chines to allow law enforcement agen- cies KNOW cies to eavesdrop on electronic communications.The administration ALOT ABOUT YOU claims that failing and do so would be begging terrorists criminals to Databases cut a wide swath col- lude in cyberspace. I That may still seem like James �i through personal privacy Bond stuff; more troubling is the growing accessibility of everyday magine a small plastic card in- formation. Take the computerization that holds all manner of of medical records—which information about you on a promises to be fast-forwarded tiny memory chip:your date of by the Clinton health plan. birth.Social Security number, .:;.. As Mubarak S. Dahir points credit and medical histories out in Philadelphia city Paper And suppose the same card letsQ•..".--- t i (May 28, 1993), "your video you drive a car,fill prescriptions •, •I _ renting habits are better medi- getpro- cash from machines,pay •>< . tected by law than your parking tickets,and collect gov- cal records."That's because you t benefits there's more money in your ernincarnation of this so- medical records. A privacy ex- One called smart card is already in f Jen quoted by Dahir says in- use. Some insurance companies / surance companies generate •issue medical history cards to 1 "lists of individuals with cer- policyholders who need them / tain kinds of medical prob- to get prescriptions filled.This )ems and then turn around type of technology evolves out and sell those lists to pharma- of convenience,says Evan Hen- , - -• ceutical companies[and]oth- Bricks editor of Privacy Times •'= er businesses." newsletter. but "the dark side is S s'y�•�� Medical records are used that landlords,employers.and �e� �•` ::.1..x ' to make a whole host of deci- insurance companies could say Ste;t�F�`t,,t^�`�`�� sions about you that aren't re we won't do business with you r *rE . 5�`\ti•,9e0 lated to your health.Accord- unless you show us your card." _ � N Nps"'. y ti0 ing to a 1991 government Personal information gets �'r $;RANO report,writes Dahir,"50 per- Personal to protect as more com- cent of employers regularly use panes and government agen- cies build computerized data- for hiring and promotion pur- bases that are easily linked. poses.Of those who do,near)} "You can go database-hopping 1 20 percent. . .do not inform the way people go bar-hopping,"says uses them for investigative purposes." their employees that their Hendricks. "The information g, g medical records have been used for super- According to Simson L.Garfinkel, such purposes."Turner Broadcasting highway will probably be developed by writing in Wired(Feb. 1994),the data- System won't hire smokers,notes Da- corporations,but the government is al- base craze started with Ronald Rea- hir,and Best Lock Corporation of In- ways willing to piggyback on these gan's fables of welfare queens bilking dianapolis fired an employee after things.Companies develop databases taxpayers. "It was called Operation finding out he was a social drinker. for direct marketing and then the FBI Match,"says a privacy expert quoted CONfIN11Ep or:RAGE 32 30 Utne Reader•May/June 1994 `'