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