Loading...
CC Minutes 1-9-06 City Council Meeting - January 9,2006 BLUFF CREEK TWIN HOMES. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD & HIGHWAY 101. MARTIN SCHUTROP: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY IN THE 2000 MUSA; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES FOR AN 18 UNIT TWIN HOME DEVELOPMENT. 2 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor and council. This subject site is located at the corner of Lyman Boulevard and 101. It's located on the south west corner. This area currently is not in the MUSA based on the fact that doing the improvements on 101 and Lyman and the property immediately to the west...subdivided, staff felt it'd be prudent to work with the property owner to advance this development of this project, so it does require a land use amendment again which we support. This item did appear before the Planning Commission on December 6th. There were a couple changes that the Planning Commission did recommend and I'll go through those. This is the subject site. I'm trying to follow the paper and it's not matching up. There we go. It's a little bit complex in the fact that we have to get the access to this street to tie into the future access, so that'd be a property that's coming, what was the Sand's property and now looks like it will be developed by the Shelard Group at the intersection there, and then also there is a gas line easement which we'll touch a little bit more about in a minute. And then there's also the Bluff Creek Overlay District, a significant wetland so it would be the appropriate land use. It'd be hard to get a single family neighborhood in there based on the size itself to try to make that transition to the Springfield neighborhood. Commercial across the street. You've got some larger lots to the west so in looking at this staff felt that a twin home PUD seemed to make the most sense. Again density on this we're looking at 18 lots. These are more a traditional twin home as you can see. In putting together the PUD you can have 30%. In working with the applicant we actually got it down to 25% and put together a compliance table. The home sites themselves would be one story. I think it's a really nice design. A different product. We do have variation in the fact that there's some of the units will actually be side loaded. One of the variances that we're requesting is a 50 foot street and that allows, based on the pitching ofthe gas line, it's actually in this area. We talked about this earlier that it's a 60 foot easement in here. It was actually a 50 foot setback so as we stated earlier and looked at that ordinance, we're trying to have some consistency. It's difficult for the staff too but this has quite a bit of setback from the street, so that actually gives a built in buffer for that. One of the things that the Planning Commission looked at is they wanted to see access through this via this cul-de-sac to get back up to this.. .So I touched on some of the major developments itself. Again we looked at the PUD as an appropriate tool to create that transition between the surrounding land uses. Again doing a twin homes, keeping it underneath the density. We did put together design standards. I showed you a typical house but if you look at on page 5, we put together some setback standards. Again the interior lot lines. 5 foot so those houses, while they had their own lot, they'll be 10 feet apart but 5 on each side. And that was one of the recommendations that the developers adhere to a 5 foot setback requirement. There's a few that didn't and that they show the trail. There was also a large water line that they'll have to incorporate going along 101 and that one can accommodate potential developments in the future. So again this wetland, kind of the water demarcation that we further develop like that is in the 2010 but that will be the buffer for that. There's no park dedication. There's a park across the street so we're taking fees for that. There is a conditional use for development within the overlay district. They're not 39 City Council Meeting - January 9, 2006 touching the primary district but there will be some minor grading so water quantity and quality fees, handling the ponding on site. Be taking those. Again the 50 foot street. We'll have a 31 foot cross section which is our standard again. We supported that 50 foot in order, because we've got this excessive setback requirement here, and allow for some of those side loaded garages. We think it will add a lot of street interest too. There will be tree replacement. Approximately 23 trees. So with that there are 4 motions. We are recommending approval. There are 4 motions. One for the comp plan amendment advancing this into the MUSA. Again we believe that's prudent because we're doing all the improvements on the 3 sides, major sides of the property. Rezoning it to the, they're going for concept and preliminary PUD and a preliminary plat and then finally on page 16 the conditional use permit for work within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, where does the, where's the MUSA line now? Is that on Lyman or where? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it's on Lyman. Yep. Councilman Lundquist: And with the, then what's the western, or I guess the eastern boundary of the MUSA area now? Kate Aanenson: It'd be, we'd move it to here. Those lots. Councilman Lundquist: Where is it currently? Kate Aanenson: Oh, it's actually right on 101. I'm sorry. Today, 101 correct. Mayor Furlong: It's 101 and Lyman isn't it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, because you have the Springfield development that's in. It will go down just to Bandimere. It kind of cuts across... Councilman Lundquist: Okay, where 101 makes ajog there is where, if you continued that straight, that's where it is there. So this is probably what, 200 feet? Something like that. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it's contiguous on the north and on the east side to the current MUSA. And again we felt the timing of that, in meeting with the City Engineer and the property owner, this probably goes back a year. Our development of Lyman and 101 significantly impacts the property, so we felt it'd be prudent to let them make some wise decisions while we're looking at all this development and then have them not be able to make some plans for that. Councilman Lundquist: So then along those lines, when we just approved a study or dollars for a study tonight on 101, on the consent agenda, do we have any idea of what that's going to look like or what might or might not happen with, and I'd hate for something like this to come in, 40 City Council Meeting - January 9,2006 spend all the money, do all the work and then all of a sudden we have a study that says well maybe we should put a road right through the middle of it or something like that. Kate Aanenson: 101 at this intersection... will not be changed. Actually they're building the new part of 101 terminus to here, so and that includes, it's restricted median through here too to access was another reason why it's restricted on 101. Just past this I believe. Mayor Furlong: You're saying as part of this. Part of the new Highway 212 construction overall project with the realignment of 101, this part south of Lyman on 101 is already part of that development project. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: We're not.. . create median in there. Kate Aanenson: Which is one of the reasons we wanted to advance it because they're being impacted, and that restricts development because there's actually a median I believe to, almost to the cul-de-sac length so it's restricted. You know one way, right-in/right-out. We looked at some of those issues too as far as stacking, so that's already being accommodated with the 212/101 construction, but you're right. After that. Councilman Lundquist: So this is far enough... Kate Aanenson: Yep, and after that we have to examine the rest of that property. Then we kind of get into that wetland area, those curves and that. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. And then the park, I'm assuming when you said a park across the street you're talking about Bandimere? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: Do we have some provisions then to get from here over there without having to try to dodge traffic across 101? Kate Aanenson: Right I think, that was one of the reasons why the Planning Commission felt strongly about this and making this connection to get you across the street and go back down. I think long term wise we'll have to look at that with 101 construction. Councilman Lundquist: So is there a controlled intersection there for people to cross at Lyman? Lyman and 101 will be a controlled intersection? Paul Oehme: Yeah, there'll be a signal there. There'll be, there already is an existing trail along the east side of 101 and that will be improved in connection with the 212 project. Councilman Lundquist: Right, just so these people can get across 101. Okay. 41 City Council Meeting - January 9,2006 Kate Aanenson: I did want to point out one other things. I gave revised findings of fact. That should also be included as part of your motion too. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions for staff. Councilwoman Tjornhom: My only concern was the trail going to Bandimere Park. I realize it will be probably an empty nester type of place, or a life cycle which I like but I still would hate to see little kids trying to zig zag across those roads on their bike. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other questions for staff. Councilman Peterson: The only one I had Kate is one of the negatives of using your Planning Commission to see some of these drawings is the elevations are kind of tough to see. As I visual the space, we've got some pretty good elevation changes. I'm guessing 30-40 feet. Is it dropping from Lyman south? The road in and of itself in and out is going to be relatively level isn't it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, up at the top of the street you're at 923 and then back... Councilman Peterson: 30 plus feet. Kate Aanenson: Dropping back... then the biggest change is where it comes back of those lots... walk out on the backs of those. Mayor Furlong: Can you point to us on there where the existing home is located approximately? Kate Aanenson: Right there. Mayor Furlong: Right in there, okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and the driveway was coming here, so again for lifestyle for them to be able to do that, restricting the access point. Making those changes kind of letting them make some other hard decisions. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else Councilman Peterson? Questions? Councilman Labatt? Councilman Labatt: No sir. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist? Councilman Lundquist: Kate, when you looked at the comp plan stuff, this area, what was the original guiding for it? Kate Aanenson: Low density. It does meet the low density requirements, so it's within that. I'm sorry, I should have stated that. 42 City Council Meeting - January 9,2006 Councilman Lundquist: You probably did. Kate Aanenson: No, I don't think I did. It's actually guided low density and that's what they're coming in at. It goes up to 4 units an acre. That on this is actually 3.3. 3.38. And again, we were trying to balance that because you have some existing larger homes and the single family and commercial, what makes the most sense. And the price point and the look. We think it adds a different type of product. Housing product in the city, which is a nice balance. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Couple of questions in terms of the, and this may be a question for Mr. Oehme. In terms of the length of that cul-de-sac and how, it looks like the right-of-way comes right up to the right-of-way on 101, is that correct? Paul Oehme: 8 feet away I believe. Mayor Furlong: It's 8 feet away, okay. Is there any issue or concern with regard to cars driving on that road with traffic on 101 in terms of distraction? And I'm thinking specifically in the evening with lights and headlights and such like that. Kate Aanenson: We can look at landscaping maybe too Paul. Mayor Furlong: Anything to, I guess has that been addressed or not? And if not, can we consider. Paul Oehme: We can look at it. It's a good point. We didn't really take a look at it. The trips generated on the new roadway. Mayor Furlong: They'll be limited. Paul Oehme: Be very limited so I don't know how much conflict it would be. Mayor Furlong: And there may not be but I, the right-of-way looks like it comes, if there's 8 feet between the two right-of-ways then, is that part of the private property for one of the lots or does it touch? You'd still have the 15 foot from the curb to the right-of-way is about 15 feet there so you'd have that buffer area. But you don't want to be planting anything in there. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And there's also a significant water line going down there...We can look at that. 43 City Council Meeting - January 9, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Take a look at that between preliminary and final. The other question I have, is the, or the access point for this road off of Lyman, is that then where we will line up the access point for the property to the north? Kate Aanenson: That's the intent. Mayor Furlong: That's the intent. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we're just trying to get clarification on that. I think from Paul and I meeting with MnDot, wanted that road, we have a water line to shift that as it touches down at Lyman, to shift that a little bit to the east to have the roadway over our water, our utilities there. So that is the goal. That has to be shifted all before it comes back for final plat. Mayor Furlong: Just for understanding, where does this Highway 101 from the north currently come down just across from that road? Can you see? Okay, so it's right in there. Okay. What's the anticipated access control, or the control onto Lyman for those two roads? Paul Oehme: Onto Lyman there? There won't be any signals or controlled. Mayor Furlong: It will just be stop lights going onto Lyman, correct? Or stop signs. Paul Oehme: There will be, well at the new intersection there there will be turn lanes designated for right turn lanes and left turn lanes into the property so there will be controlled access into that site via the turn lanes but. Mayor Furlong: On Lyman. Paul Oehme: On Lyman, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, but there isn't going to be a stop light or anything? Paul Oehme: No stop signs, no stop lights. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, and it's not restricted to a right-in/right-out? Paul Oehme: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Paul Oehme: It will be a full access. Kate Aanenson: I think there is a median but it stops... Paul Oehme: Yeah, it might be farther up on 101. 44 City Council Meeting - January 9,2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay, and the area of Bluff Creek, just for clarification. It might be in the staff report. If it is I apologize for the redundant question but is that the primary zone or secondary zone? Kate Aanenson: ...that would be the secondary zone. It's a no touch in the primary zone which is not. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Does the primary zone come onto the property though? Kate Aanenson: Yes it does. Mayor Furlong: Okay so, and these all meet the setbacks from that? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay. Good, thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, is the applicant here this evening? Good evening. Martin Schutrop: Good evening council and Mayor. My name is Martin Schutrop. I'm the developer of the property and so I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Appreciate you being here. Again this was heard at the Planning Commission. The public hearing was held. I don't know that there were any significant changes but if somebody would like to provide any comments to the council, we'd be happy to hear them at this time. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Hello again. Mayor Furlong: Hello. Thanks for waiting. Debbie Lloyd: I would have sent this via e-mail but I was not able to access all the information on the web site last night. It was my first opportunity to review everything and I do have two concerns. One, I did address during the meeting and I didn't see any update on it in the report and I know how many details there are to review so I just want to bring it up one more time again. The interior, no I'm sorry, the interior, I'm looking at this. Lot 1 and 2. Interior public right-of-way. Page 5 of the report. Lot 1 and 2 have a 20 foot interior public right-of-way. In Section 20-506, which I didn't have with me at the Planning Commission meeting, it states that the minimum setback is supposed to be 30 feet but it may be waived by the City Council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced.. .minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be maintained. I didn't see anything to indicate the environmental enhancement by reducing the setback to 20 feet. And then seeing the walkway in there, I'm thinking how far is that going to be from those homes? I mean basically that's cutting in. So I just want, in case you weren't alerted to that, I just wanted to make you aware of that fact. And then the second question I have is, because it is a private street, and there's no parking I believe on private streets in PUD's, where will people park since, I mean really they're cut off from parking on other streets. Perhaps there should be provision for parking in this development. Thank you. 45 City Council Meeting - January 9, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you Ms. Lloyd. First question was on the justification for the 20 foot setback for Lots 1 and 2 versus 30. Kate Aanenson: I think it's woven into the 50 foot street setback and the fact that we've got that excessive gas line easement pinched by the Bluff Creek Overlay District and in a PUD you can set what other standards you want to put in place. So this circumstance, and to allow for the architectural change that the staff wanted of the side loaded garage and add interest, to give them that relief. And the circumstance when we looked at guest parking, we accommodate based on this type of product, there is stacking in the driveway itself to accomplish that. Kind of treat this similar to what we have on other twin home projects or our single home. Most the guest parking is in the driveway. Mayor Furlong: Clarification I guess then, because the staff report refers to public right-of-way, is the cul-de-sac itself a private street or would that be a public street? Paul Oehme: The street itself? Mayor Furlong: The cul-de-sac. Paul Oehme: The cul-de-sac is. Kate Aanenson: It's a public street. Mayor Furlong: Private street as I understood in reading the report and the minutes of the Planning Commission related to the shared driveways for the side loaded garages, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's my understanding, correct. Mayor Furlong: So the private streets are the access to the garages off of the public street? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So I think, I don't know Ms. Lloyd, that's how I understood it when I looked at that. That because you're two properties sharing the same driveway, by definition it becomes a private street. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Because it's going to have the same cross section on pavement width 31 that we would have on a normal street. Mayor Furlong: Okay, but the cul-de-sac is a public right-of-way? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: With normal. 46 City Council Meeting - January 9,2006 Kate Aanenson: It's a private street when you've got the driveway... Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess to the specific question, what's the environmental interest with regard to the setback to 20 feet. I heard the Bluff Creek Overlay District mentioned as one of the issues. Kate Aanenson: Correct. As you're dropping those slopes back down, it's encumbered by an excessive pipeline easement. We felt narrowing that and pushing those driveways closer, you got the adequate parking with the street and the driveways. We felt that would work and to turn the garages. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Thank you. Any other public comments on this project? Okay, thank you. I'll bring it back to council for discussion. And I'm going to take an amalgamate question. On the extending the MUSA over this area, does that create, are there any other issues or precedence that's being created there? I mean this particular case it seems to me... Kate Aanenson: I think our approach with the Met Council is the fact to bring this forward we felt comfortable in the fact that we're doing a substantial regional system change that has implication for this comer and we think that that's the major issue. Mayor Furlong: It's contiguous on both sides. Kate Aanenson: Yeah with two state highways, or two regional systems. The state highway and the county collector road. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Comments. Discussion on the project. Councilman Lundquist: My only comments would be not generally in favor of you know rushing and kind of piecemeal development, which one could argue either way on this one but since Kate I think you made a good point of this one kind of being squeezed on a lot of directions and so I'm inclined to make an exception here and go through that and give us one little piece in there and, seems like a good project. A good product that we don't have a lot of or any of so, you know inclined to say okay on this piece on something that generally I wouldn't support for those reasons but think this one warrants it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I think that to, it adds a certain amount of housing stock that we don't have a lot of in Chanhassen. It's one of those things that cycles through but I think it seems to be a very nice design into our community so, I certainly believe the exceptions are with merit. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Comments, Councilwoman Tjornhom. 47 City Council Meeting - January 9, 2006 Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Peterson. I think it's a good fit for the area concerning what's going to be going on around it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt: Agree with everybody. I think the timing is correct with, considering what's happening with 212 and 101. Mayor Furlong: Yeah I would concur. I think to ask this property owner to wait, there doesn't seem to be the justification. I think anytime, to Councilman Lundquist's point, I think you need to be very hesitate to deviate from the comprehensive plan but I think when you merit or weigh the merits of the individual case, I think this one certainly is justified and it's, it works on a number of different levels, which have been mentioned so I would certainly support it as well. Any further discussion? If not, is there a motion? The motions I believe begin on page 409 of our electronic packet. Councilman Labatt: Mayor, I move that we approve comprehensive plan amendment to incorporate the property in the current Urban Service Area subject to review and the approval of the Met Council. Condition A. Can we take these all at one time or do we take them all as one? Mayor Furlong: I don't know that there's any reason to split them unless there's, let's make them at once and. Councilman Labatt: Okay, so I move condition A, Band C in staff report subject to the following conditions as indicated and set forth, and adopting the current new findings of fact. Kate Aanenson: And there's one other, D is actually on page 16. So it's A, B, C, D. Mayor Furlong: D moves down to the Wetland Alteration, is that right? Bluff Creek Overlay District. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, the findings of fact go with C correct? Kate Aanenson: With all of them. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And condition D. Mayor Furlong: So items A, B, C and D with conditions laid out in the staff report for each of those individual items is appropriate, subject to the revised findings of fact. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none we'll proceed with the vote. 48 City Council Meeting - January 9, 2006 Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the following items subject to the revised Findings of Fact: A. Resolution #2006-05: The City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment incorporating the property in the current Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUS A) subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. B. Approval of the Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development rezoning the property from A2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development- Residential incorporating the development design standards contained in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. C. Approval of the preliminary plat creating 18 lots, two outlots and right-of-way for public streets with a variances for the public street right-of-way width and the use of private streets to access lots 8, 9,12,13,16 and 17, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated October 28, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. A sidewalk connection on the south side of the street from the internal street cul-de-sac to the intersection of Lyman Boulevard shall be provided. 2. The development shall pay full park fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. 3. Applicant shall resubmit for city approval a landscaping plan that includes 84 trees. At least one tree is required in each front yard. Common areas must be sodded and provided with irrigation. Native plantings will be required along the southern edge of the development parallel to the wetland. These plantings shall be species selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan planting list. 4. Applicant shall meet the minimum number and types of plantings required for the bufferyards. 5. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 6. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 7. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 49 City Council Meeting - January 9, 2006 8. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 9. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 10. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 11. Two additional fire hydrants will be required; one at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and the new proposed road, and one in the area of Lot 13/14. 12. A minimum 16.5 foot buffer strip shall be maintained from the delineated edge of the wetland. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 13. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over all of Outlot B. The developer may dedicate Outlot B to the City. 14. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 15. All structures shall meet a 40 foot structural setback from the Primary Corridor boundary of the Bluff Creek Overlay District as required by Chanhassen City Code. In addition, no grading shall occur within the first 20 feet of the Primary Corridor. The plans shall be revised to eliminate grading within 20 feet of the Primary Corridor. 16. The plans shall be revised to include the City of Chanhassen's standard detail 5300 for silt fence. Type 2 silt fence shall be used along the southern grading limits and at the normal water level of the pond. Type 1 silt fence shall be used elsewhere. Silt fence shall be installed around the storm water pond at the pond's normal water level until surrounding areas have adequate vegetative erosion control established. 17. The plans shall be revised to include City of Chanhassen standard detail 5302A for Wimco or similar catch basin inlet protection. 18. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10:1 t03:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) 50 City Council Meeting - January 9,2006 These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 19. All erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with City, Carver County Water Resource Management Area and MPCA permit requirements. 20. A SWPPP should be developed by Ryan Engineering for the site which would encompass an erosion and sediment control plan. The SWPPP is needed prior to applying for the NPDES permit. 21. Erosion control blanket is needed for the slopes NE of lot 18 and the southern slopes from about the 912 / 910 proposed contours to the bottom of the slope within 14 days of final grade. 22. Energy dissipation at the PES inlet to the permanent storm water pond is needed. A detail is needed. 23. The proposed storm water basin must be used as a temporary sediment trap during construction and must be excavated in the initial construction phases of the development. A temporary diversion berm should be constructed to divert runoff from lots 18 to 11 into the pond. This should be included in the SWPPP. 24. A temporary outlet and / or a temporary stabilized EOF for the temporary basin is needed. 25. Inlet controls are needed for the CB' s within 24 hours of installation. A detail is needed; Chanhassen city specifications are Wimco type inlet control or equal. 26. The silt fence as proposed is running up and down the slope along the west and east boundaries of the site. The silt fence must be installed with J-hooks to effectively provide sediment control and not concentrate runoff to the south. 27. A concrete washout area is needed in the SWPPP; silt fence, sump area and rock driveway should be used and could be located in Outlot A. 28. A permanent outlet structure is needed for the permanent storm water basin in the southwest comer of the pond. Detail is needed. 29. A stable emergency over flow (EOF) is needed for the permanent storm water basin. Riprap or a turf reinforcement mate (TRM) could be used and specifications and detail area needed. 30. The contractor shall inspect daily all erosion control measures and perform maintenance on BMPs as needed or required. 51 City Council Meeting - January 9,2006 31. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $21,857. 32. The final plans must include the following revisions: a. Existing contours within 100 feet of the proposed development must be shown on the plan. b. Note the top and bottom of wall elevations for all retaining walls. c. Note the location and elevation of the emergency overflow on the east end of the cuI de sac. d. A full-size drainage area map must be submitted. e. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk must be constructed on one side of the street. f. Show the proposed street light layout. g. A stop sign must be installed at the intersection at Lyman Boulevard. h. All plan sheets must be signed by an Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 33. If import or export of material is required for the development of this property, the applicant must submit a detailed haul route to the City. 34. The existing well and septic system must be properly removed/abandoned. 35. The developer must field verify the sewer and watermain stub locations and elevations. If the stubs have not been installed the developer shall directional bore the utilities under Lyman Boulevard. All costs and permits associated with this work would be the developer's responsibility. 36. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat and shall include all required information. 37. The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 38. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase IT Construction Site Permit), Department of Health, MCES, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 39. Access and maintenance agreements shall be recorded against the benefiting properties for the private streets. 40. Buildings over 8,500 sq. ft. in size must be protected with an automatic fire protection system. The State of Minnesota is in the process of revising Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code regarding fire protection systems. It is not yet entirely clear how these changes will affect residential construction. It is important that the developer meet with the 52 City Council Meeting - January 9,2006 Inspections Division prior to final design to determine what ramifications, if any, the new requirements will have on the project. 41. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Existing utilities and on-site sewage treatment systems must be abandoned in accordance applicable regulations. 42. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 43. Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and cannot be constructed until a building permit is obtained. 44. The applicant shall create a Homeowners Association to take responsibility of the retaining walls and maintain them. 45. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 46. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official." 47. That the developer provides trail access to the southwest comer of 101 and Lyman. 48. That the developer revises drawings to adhere to the 5 foot setback requirements. 49. The developer shall install a 16 inch watermain along 101 and loop the watermain within the project to this watermain. The city will reimburse the developer for the costs of oversizing the pipe for the 16 inch watermain. D. Approval of Conditional Use Permit to develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. No grading is allowed within the first 20 feet of the Primary Corridor boundary. 2. All structures must meet a 40 foot structural setback from the Primary Corridor boundary. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to o. Mayor Furlong: Just a quick comment. We had a number of these items that came through the Planning Commission and I think they did a great job working through a number of the issues here so, Ms. Aanenson and Mr. Papke who are here, I think the Planning Commission did a good job on all these so we appreciate your efforts. Please relay that back to them. That completes the items of new business. 53