The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-01_HIGHLANDS OF BLUFF CREEK (FILE 1)April 12, 2004 Robert E. Generous, AICP Senior Planner City of Chanhassen Dear Mr. Generous: We live in an Arboretum Village Club Home at 2856 Century Trail. Our townhouse is the most westerly of the one level townhouses in the Pulte Addition and is adjacent to the proposed Plowshares Inc. addition. It has been brought to our attention that Plowshares Inc. is proposing that an outlet road be put in east of their proposed addition and east of their property line. This road would encroach on and across the green space that Pulte dedicated to the city. We are strongly opposed to an outlet road in this location. It would create noise, fumes, and the distraction of headlights in addition to destroying the tranquility of the green space. If Plowshares Inc. needs the outlet road let them devise a plat plan using their own property! Thank you for your consideration. We are, ale & Jean Rusch 2856 Century Trail Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 April 12, 2004 Robert E. Generous, AICP Senior Planner City of Chanhassen Dear Mr. Generous: We live in an Arboretum Village Club Home at 2856 Century Trail. Our townhouse is the most westerly of the one level townhouses in the Pulte Addition and is adjacent to the proposed Plowshares Inc. addition. It has been brought to our attention that Plowshares Inc. is proposing that an outlet road be put in east of their proposed addition and east of their property line. This road would encroach on and across the green space that Pulte dedicated to the city. We are strongly opposed to an outlet road in this location. It would create noise, fumes, and the distraction of headlights in addition to destroying the tranquility of the green space. If Plowshares Inc. needs the outlet road let them devise a plat plan using their own property! Thank you for your consideration. We are, ale & Jean Rusch 2856 Century Trail Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 o4 -b � Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Claybaugh: I don't have any objections to that. Sacchet: Okay, very good. We have a motion. We have a second. We have some friendly amendments. Claybaugh moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #04-09 for a 6 foot variance from the 50 foot front yard setback requirement as shown on plans dated 9/20/03, prepared by Allan R Hastings based upon the commission's findings that this is a reasonable request and the applicant's willingness to compromise on the size of the garage, with the following condition: The site shall not be used for a home occupation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Sacchet: It's appeal able, yes if you want to appeal that you can. Slagle: And if I may, Nate. Great, well written. Well written. Sacchet: Okay, thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTLAL-MEDIUM DENSITY: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT, PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW FOR AN 18 TOWNHOUSE PROJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR 18 TOWNHOUSE LOTS AND OUTLOTS; AND A VARIANCE FROM THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON 6 ACRES OF AND HIGHWAY 41); HIGHLANDS OF BLUFF CREEK; PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Public Present: Name Address Scott Bemas Susan McAllister Todd M. Simning Ed Hasek Brent Hislop Nathan Franzen 6800 France Avenue South 2930 West 78's Street 1851 Lake Drive West Westwood Professional Services 1851 Lake Drive West 1851 Lake Drive West W Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff. Papke: I'll start. Just to make sure I understand a couple things. On page 2. Third paragraph you state that the applicant has greatly improved the plan, and I just want to make sure I understand you know, how you define greatly in this context. I understand the trail has been added. Generous: Pedestrian access. Papke: The narrower road. Generous: Well, they brought it down to meet standards. Papke: Right. Generous: Increase the ponding to comply with the city storm water ponding requirements. Papke: Okay. Generous: Reduced the retaining walls on the eastern edge of the property and graded in to sort of match the existing development to the east, and provided additional landscaping. Papke: Okay. In terms of the trail, could you explain a little bit better how the funding for that will work. If I understand kind of in summary, they build the trail and then they get reimbursed for the. Generous: The trail construction. Papke: The trail construction but they pay essentially for the engineering of the trail. Generous: Correct. Papke: So that great improvement is a city funded trail. Generous: Yes. Papke: Okay. One last question. The applicant stated in her letter to the Mayor and the City Council her understanding on page 2 of the letter that the, her understanding was that the start of the primary zone was 300 feet from where the vegetation starts. Okay. That was included in our packet here. Generous: Right. 10 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Papke: I just want to make sure I understand, because that seems very different from the primary zone that we have on our drawings, so there seems to be a pretty distinct discrepancy between the applicant's understanding of how that primary zone was established and what we have on our drawings. Could you shed any light on that? Generous: Right. Well there's no way to specifically address a distance requirement in the primary zone. It could be as narrow as 10 feet and as wide as a quarter mile. It really depends on topography, vegetation, and hydrology and it's, as part of the Bluff Creek natural resource management plan they studied what elements should be included within the primary zone and what should be preserved. And so in this instance we came up with the line which is the prima fascia start for where it's located. However we don't find out until it's actually surveyed as part of the development proposal where that final line will be and that's part of what they did here because we've agreed that it doesn't include the corral area or the bam, but it does include all the mature stand of trees on the north side of the property. Papke: Okay. Last but not least, just to make sure I understand the change in the trees that will be taken out and removed. So in the greatly improved plan we have about 7 or 8, 60 foot white pines that are taken out to make space for the city funded trail. Is that correct? That's kind of a major improvement in the preservation analysis. Okay. That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Who wants to go next? Lillehaug: I will. Sacchet: Ladies first. Lillehaug: Go ahead. Tjornhom: I just have a couple questions. Bob, explain to me that, can the primary zone expand as the years go by? I mean do these natural resources of the wetland, can they just keep on, if no one takes care of them. You know if they're not mowed or if they're not developed, do they expand? Generous: Theoretically yes. The habitat area could become larger or smaller. Tjomhom: Okay, so that if it wasn't developed now, say in 5 years that area could be even larger? I mean you probably don't know but I'm just wondering. Generous: Potentially if the, well in this case the canopy coverage could expand out to the south. Tjornhom: And then they wouldn't be allowed to build in that. I1 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Generous: In that area. Tjomhom: In that area either. Okay. And so I guess I don't know if this is even an appropriate question to ask but as I read through all of this, to me the main thing is, if these people don't get you know, their Section 3 into 3 lots, is it a deal breaker? I mean are we wasting our time if people, if we all agree that they can't. Sacchet: We probably will have to ask the applicant, yeah. I think that's a question for the applicant Bethany. Tjomhom: Okay. Then I guess I don't have... Sacchet: It's a very good question. Tjornhom: Okay. Sacchet: Who else? Craig. Claybaugh: I guess I would dove tail on that inappropriate question and ask what your discussions have been with the applicant with regard to that specific issue. From the staff's perspective. Generous: They have advised me that they needed 18 units to make the project go forward. The underlying property owner said she needs more units. Claybaugh: And to come back to the ultimate plan, the ultimate plan in the staff's opinion did not mitigate the encroachment of Lot 3 into the primary zone? Generous: With the pond to the north, is that? Claybaugh: Well the alternate plan that you had, yes trotted out as part of your presentation. Generous: Well staff's concern was that this was even encroaching even further into the primary zone boundary and taking out additional trees in that. While the structures were pushed away from the primary zone, you have this other encroachment into there. Claybaugh: And I'd like you to define, the reason I'm asking that question is that with respect to the alternate plan, all we have is the contour line plan, and for the plan that you are recommending, we have a number of sheets that are devoid of contours and define it and it's easier to read so I'm asking you to interpret that alternate plan a little bit for me, and come back and maybe justify your decision because my interpretation was by locating the retention pond to the north, that lessened the physical encroachment of buildings. Generous: Of the structures. 12 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Claybaugh: Exactly. Generous: Except for the storm water pond. Claybaugh: Except for the storm water pond, yes, but my primary concern was with the buildings and the people occupying those buildings. Generous: And so yes, for those structures it would be, they would be pushed farther away from the tree line. Claybaugh: Okay. Then with respect to the NURP pond, is that not an accepted placement for that? How do you draw a parallel between the encroachment of the buildings and the encroachment of the storm water pond with respect to the placement near the bluff? Do you assign the same weight to those two? Generous: I wouldn't personally. I'd have the stone water pond would have, be more natural feature if you will than a structure. However from the environmentalist, either encroachment is an encroachment and it's bad for the corridor. Claybaugh: Okay with respect to the sediment pond being there and an environmental issues with respect to it, and the separation. If that pond was back outside of that primary zone, then they would just have that additional buffer to filter it before it made it's way down to Bluff Creek, is that correct? Generous: If it was back. Claybaugh: The function of the NURP pond is obviously for settling sediment. Generous: Right. To pre -treat it. Claybaugh: Okay. It's location with respect to the primary setback is just a function of the area that the runoff through there will have to filter. Is it a filtration question with respect to where it's. If they could locate the NURP pond outside of the primary setback zone. Generous: Right. Claybaugh: Okay, I'm assuming that would be acceptable to you. Generous: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay. By locating it where it is currently located and encroaching in that primary setback zone from an environmental standpoint, what's at risk? What are we losing? 13 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Generous: You're losing the integrity of the treed area. The existing tree cover that's there. That's primarily. Claybaugh: We've hopefully gone at length to establish that the quality of those trees, not only their ...was located, in your opinion is there substantial stands of trees down there that are in jeopardy? Of qualitytrees. Generous: Well the existing canopy coverage is. Not a substantial number, no. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Rich. Slagle: I have a couple. The easiest one first, and Bob thanks for your efforts on that trail. My question is, if you go to the sidewalk that runs on the north side of West 78th, it goes east. And it hits Century Trail, okay. Generous: Correct. Slagle: And it appears it stops there and then someone would need to walk across West 78th to continue east. My question is, other than the trail that is just east of Century, if I'm going out further east. Century has a trail that goes to the east of it and runs north and then hits the wetland and then it starts to work it's way to the trail that's behind this development. My question is is where is the nearest trail connector and/or sidewalk that would come up into Pulte so these folks wouldn't have to walk all the way to Century and then go up a quarter mile to get to the wetland. And if you don't know the answer, maybe the applicant knows. But I think it's a fair question is, what route are people going to utilize the services that the city might end up paying for. So, if we don't have an answer. Generous: The new connection on 41 would be the only close one. Otherwise you go to the wetland finger east of Century Trail, or Century Boulevard and then you go in the Vasserman Ridge even further east. Slagle: I think for some reason, and I hope I'm right, that there is a stub somewhere in Pulte to the west of Century that comes up from the trail into the homes. I hope. Generous: Yeah I don't know. I'm not certain on that. Slagle: Okay. Getting back to the question of the pond now. It appears to me, and you referenced it by saying it's still within the canopy if the pond was situated to the north, but from all the drawings I'm seeing, there's very little canopy in the majority of the area where the pond would go. I mean the pond might infringe on some of the canopy coverage but it appears to me that it's fairly open. The shrubbish you know, or I mean is that a fair assessment versus going 50 yards to the northwest or 50 yards to the northeast. 14 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Generous: Yes. 50, if you're going to locate it in the north side, that's probably the best part. Slagle: Okay. And my only question is then, would it not be ideal, or maybe that's too strong a word. Would it not be beneficial to some of those residents to have a pond behind their homes? And one could even envision a walking path around the edge of it, or something to that effect. I mean why would we think a pond wouldn't be an amenity that one could utilize? Generous: Definitely it could. Slagle: Okay. So last question then Bob. Are you suggesting then that the trade off that they've recommended in the application. Not the alternative one but the application, you're not in agreement with the encroachment into the primary zone and the only alternative that we've seen so far is the pond going to the north, is that correct? Generous: Correct. Slagle: And then the other option would be lesser units. Generous: Correct. Slagle: Okay, so there's no other alternatives or options that have been discussed that you can address? Generous: You could put additional units, go to 4 unit structures. Slagle: So then the density would just increase. Generous: Well they'd probably keep the density. It's just you'd have different structure types. Fours and threes instead of twos and threes. That would be another way to do it. Slagle: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: Bruce? Feik: Sure, I have one and I'd just like to rephrase something that I've heard, and you correct me where I'm wrong I guess, and this is getting back to the NURP pond out there and the trees. The City Forester I'm understanding. Sorry. The City Forester as I understand does not weigh the impact of an encroachment as it relates to the specific trees for either alternative. So she hasn't said if you have to encroach, this is better or this is worst? It's just encroachment's bad. Generous: Correct. 15 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Feik: So there's no weight given to the loss of some really nice sugar maples as opposed to the loss of some pretty beat up basswood, to put it bluntly. There really, it's just treated, canopy cover. Generous: Right. Feik: When speaking with the applicant regarding this alternative plan, and I know I'll ask the applicant when he comes up as well but would you give me a little primer on what his thoughts were regarding from a build ability perspective and whether the NURP pond on the north end was reasonably feasible? Generous: Well you'd probably ask them but I believe they wouldn't have presented it as an option if it was. Feik: Okay. That's it for now, thanks. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: Boy I have questions. I want to preface my big question with a comment. I guess I'm having trouble, you know we gave some pretty specific direction last time on what to do to improve this and the proposal I'm seeing in front of me went the other direction with the fine tuning of the engineering, so I'm disappointed for one. So that's, so prefacing my questions, I need to take, go way back and get things clear in my head. The underlying guidance of the zoning was, that was, could you refresh my memory what that was? Generous: It's guided low, residential low density. Currently zoned A2 Lillehaug: Okay. And I know I'm back stepping here, but if that were rezoned as RSF, how many units, or what would the density be for the 6.56 acres? How many single family homes would they have to put on that? And the reason I'm asking that is because when we, when this is rezoned as PUD we need to see a significantly higher quality development here and all I'm seeing is larger impacts to the primary zone. I'm not seeing the benefits out of putting a PUD in here. So that's why I'm asking that question. How many single family homes would be allowed on that property? Generous: Without laying it out it's hard to say for certain but using the formula we use within the comprehensive plan it would be 9 units. For an RSF development. Lillehaug: Okay. That answers that question. My other questions would be, give me a second here. Going back to conditions. One of the main conditions here, and you know we're saying that there is greatly improved the plan. Well the first condition is, staff recommends deleting Lot 1, 2 and 3. So I don't see that the applicant has worked with staff at all on this. I mean that is a deal breaker obviously. Recommendation there. And so that is a firm recommendation from staff to delete Lots 1, 2 and 3 because. 16 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Generous: Take them out of the encroachment into the... That's what that does. Lillehaug: So with that condition it would follow through to a lot of conditions, there's probably others in here but for example condition number 18. You're computing that for 17 units when in essence if condition number I were granted it would be either 15 or 14 units, correct? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: Okay. You know I think we'll let the applicant speak before I go ahead with any more questions. Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. I have 2, 3, 4 quick questions as well. But the first question, the one thing I'm mostly struggling with is the proposal that was brought in front of us last time had 50 percent of the site graded. Now the report on page 7 states the plan proposes to grade about 70 percent, so how did we get from 50 percent to 70 percent...? Is that an engineering question or is that something you can address Bob? I guess it's unfair to put engineering on the spot. You weren't here when this was here the first time. Maybe the applicant is in a better position to address that. Generous: Their engineer would be better able to answer that. Sacchet: Okay. We'll hold that for the applicant. Get you off the hook. Another question similar. On page number 12, we're talking about the landscaping, the tree preservation aspect, and last time we said we're preserving 28 percent. Now this time we're cutting a significant amount more trees and they're still saying we're preserving 28 percent. How's that add up? Don't know, okay. Generous: Well just the math. Sacchet: Well yeah, that math is more than fuzzy. A question that I have from, one of the improvements, given this is an improvement. We don't have a 9 feet high retaining wall, we have 4 feet high retaining wall that's being moved to the south end. Is there any concern in terms of safety to have that retaining wall next to the road or sidewalk or how would that be handled? Can you give me some insights? Generous: We would require a fence on the top of... Sacchet: So it would be a fence and then would be the drop off with the retaining wall. And to kind of pull off on Commissioner Lillehaug's comment about condition number 1. It's actually also condition number 2 where it says the property line between Outlots A and B shall follow the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary. So we're asking that, now if I understand this correctly, Outlot A is the part that's supposed to be preserved and possibly even deeded to the City or easement or something like that? Generous: Correct. 17 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Sacchet: And so we're saying that the lot line should be the primary zone the way we are defining it. Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. That's all my questions. Thank you very much. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. See where he can enlighten us on some of these things because we certainly need that. Todd Simning: Good evening commissioners. Sacchet: State your name just for the record so we know who we have here. Todd Simning: No problem. Todd Simning, Plowshares Development out of Chanhassen, Minnesota. First off, just to give a little brief introduction again. Basically when many of you asked questions about us working with staff or not. Actually we've worked intensely with staff. Unfortunately we have gotten no good direction. The things that we have proposed to date to, you know there was somebody in staff that vehemently opposed it, and it really didn't give us a really good firm, solid ground to go to something that you guys gave us recommendations on last time I was here, and unfortunately we're back with something that you guys might not have given us recommendation on but we do feel is a good plan, and I'm going to kind of run through that. Some of the items that Bob had noted in his staff report that it was greatly improved. We did try to relocate the pond on the north side. That was less desirable, not necessarily just because of the trees that were affected on our site, but one of the things that you guys don't see in the bigger picture, and I'm going to show it on an overhead. This is the alternative plan that you guys had with the storm pond on the north here. Basically speaking we did take out a fair amount of canopy in order to make this work. But more importantly what we don't notice, or what you guys don't see is that we do have to have storm, underground storm system that goes all the way down to the pond down there which is actually, you know we haven't even done a tree inventory because it isn't part of our property. So when you're looking at that, there's going to be significant canopy and trees and you know, just to get equipment down there and actually make anything work. So when we went back and decided which direction we were going to go, staff and ourselves are looking at this and saying okay, well what would be a better alternative and we came back with the same plan for the most part that we had with the improvements that Bob has noted in his staff report. Now that gets me to the second pond that I'd like to make is that in there staff does not support encroachment into the primary zone. And they also note that 30 percent of the site is in the primary zone. I guess this is the heart of the issue for us. And what I'd like to do is try to bring forward some evidence at least what we've brought up to try to help you guys understand where we came from and come to a good conclusion as to where we want to go. The purpose of the Bluff Creek Overlay District from the information that I've culled in Ordinance number 286 did six things. And basically speaking the intent was number one, consistency of provisions of the comprehensive plan which includes the Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan as amended. Preservation of the natural conditions found in the primary zone. Creation of a suitable balance lu Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 between the amount of open space, landscaping, bluff protection. The creation of inter connected open space that preserves the migratory patterns of the wildlife. Creation of an inter connected open space network that provides recreation and educational opportunities for people. And the purpose of it was also six fold. To protect the Bluff Creek corridor. To encourage development pattern that allows people and nature to mix. Promote innovative development techniques as clustering, foster the creation of the greenway connecting Lake Minnewashta and Minnesota River Valley. Encourage cost effective site design, and lastly, implement the policies and recommendations found in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resource Management. Now, this last item is probably the most important one. Implementing the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resource Management Plan. I'm going to go the document that was actually drafted and put together by Bonestroo, which is an engineering firm for the City of Chanhassen, and basically what they did was gathered a group of citizens, staff, council people and basically got everybody together and said let's look out 40 years and what do we want to see? What do we want to protect? And in the overall plan that we're trying to incorporate and use with our ordinance, it, let me just get my bearings here. It defined, hang on. I've got to get my bearings. It defined the primary zone and this is important to read. The primary corridor boundary delineates a conservancy zone where undisturbed conditions are desired. This is the area where any type of development or human activity directly impacts the morphological and biological characteristics of Bluff Creek. That being defined as the metamorphical are related to the stability of the stream and vary depending on the variations and the flow regime, the amount of sediment carried by runoff, localized erosion, non point pollution, the management practices for this area will focus on preservation and enhancement of natural conditions. The area that was established for that buffer, and Susan's property actually lies within what they call Section 1 A, which is defined as the uplands area. That was off of Figure 9 on page 45 of the Bluff Creek Management Plan. That recommended for the uplands of Al, which is defined as Susan's property, that the corridor boundaries be defined by existing wetlands, and recommended a 300 foot strip buffer along either side of Bluff Creek. Now in all of the definitions that were trying to be adopted at the time, it had nothing to do with trees necessarily. It had to do mainly with the preservation of Bluff Creek waterways. To make certain that they're preserved, and in that what they were trying to do was not necessarily, one of the reasons why they had homeowners, property owners involved is that they didn't want to necessarily have to encroach and just take property from homeowners as you were asking a question Commissioner about, does it grow? Well you know what? It's not that fair that it continues to grow at the will of city staff and what they think, what they believe it should be and what the original practices and the ordinance look like the intent was set for. So anyway, on with that, I'm going to introduce also just a map I received from the GIS coordinator from Carver County, Gordon Schnander and for the most part what I would, sorry about that. Do I need to go this way? What I'd like to demonstrate is when staff states that 30 percent of the McAllister property is sitting in the Bluff Creek Overlay District, if in fact we were going by the intent of what the management practices document shows, as well as what the ordinance was intended to do, you basically would find about .95 acres that would actually be in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Now, in our document, or what the document that Bob shows is that they basically come up with a prima-facie definition and 19 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 boundary where they think it's supposed to be and then we're supposed to come up here and argue that it is or it isn't in this particular area. I think this clearly demonstrates that in reality I think that the primary zone that staff has been going with has grown probably a little bit too much from where it really should be, and I don't think that we are asking all that much when we're looking at our property of you know where we have our primary and secondary zone right now. In reality I think that should be pushed back. So, go ahead. Slagle: Todd are you, in this image are you suggesting that your red lines are 300 feet? Todd Simning: They are exactly 300 feet. Slagle: Okay. Todd Simning: And that was set up by the GIS coordinator down in Carver County. Now, onto why I feel that we should be approved tonight with the plan set forth that we have. I'm also going to introduce a project that Pulte did which is called Arboretum Village, which is basically a project probably approved about 3 years ago that's been in the building phase for the last 2 years. On this, what they had presented to the city, and what they got approved, and if you look at my little pink marks here, they took out significant trees to be able to fit, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 units down by the creek side, which even by the standards of the 300 foot buffer are not even close to matching up, if in fact we're trying to maintain the stream quality and runoff and that sort of thing. I also brought in some GIS surveys. The first one here is from the year 2000, and basically speaking what it shows is that Pulte had not put in their project yet, but you can see the backs of the buildings, the 10 units right here that sincerely encroach onto what technically today would be called the primary zone but obviously back in year 2000, 2001 when they were getting this approved, wasn't. From the 2002 aerial, which comes into color, you can see again probably a little bit more demonstratively the amount of trees that they actually took off to encroach to put those 10 units in, and then in the 2003 aerial, again I'm just demonstrating that things haven't changed, and I'm not certain why they ended up having to change for the McAllister project, or property and also ourselves. Going forward, I honestly do not think that we're violating the intent of Ordinance 286. I think we're adhering to it very strictly and in our practices of how we have set the site out, the ordinance was not established to be harmful to land owners. I think that was probably why they put the 300 foot buffer in there in the first place because they didn't necessarily want to take eminent domain from people. Not compensate them for it. I think that we aren't, technically speaking when even staff says that we're encroaching on the primary zone in those three lots, we aren't actually taking any significant trees. We are taking some tree cover on some smaller ones, but they are identified in the tree survey that we do have that the larger trees that are there are staying. They are not coming down. So with that I think that we should be approved tonight, including Lots 1, 2 and 3, on Block 3. I do believe that the primary and secondary zone should be revised further back so you guys don't even need to consider us having to get a variance because I think it's encroached too much at this point. I believe that we should delete number 28 as a hammer head issue, since we're sprinkling all units, that shouldn't even be part of the Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 equation. The fire marshal, if in fact and gosh, if you go back to what Matt had stated the last engineer that was here, as long as we sprinkled every unit, which is actually a requirement. Number 7 on page 19, that we would not even be required to have a hammer head. So with that I'm going to open it up to questions for you guys and hopefully I can help out and help understand where things are going. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Good presentation. Questions from the applicant. Who wants to start? Lillehaug: I'll start. Sacchet: You want to start Steve. Lillehaug: I'll start with a difficult question. You just requested that the city revisit or revise the primary zone location. Correct? Todd Simning: That is correct. Lillehaug: With doing that, why would the city want to allow a PUD in this area then, because if you revise that primary zone as far back as you were showing, I would say that you can easily get 9 single family homes on that parcel. Todd Simning: I think it's important to always strike a good balance, no matter what you're going and whether it's my personal life or business life or you guys at the city, and technically speaking I guess if in fact you just wanted to see most of the trees go down, and work with just a 300 foot buffer, maybe we wouldn't even have to stand up here and ask for a PUD. I think in the same token, a good balance is that we see value in keeping the trees. I mean that's something that sells our developments and we'd rather be able to keep as many as possible to be able to have more of a natural environment for our clients then just cutting in there and doing what you can do in Eden Prairie and I watch a townhouse development just absolutely take just about every tree out of this development and I'm like, what's going on. I mean my partner and I Steve wouldn't never have even, we said there was no way they were going to be able to do that and by god, they ripped every darn tree out and it was like that doesn't even look good. So I guess we're looking to strike a good balance and that's more of what we're looking for with the city. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. You also indicated that you received no good direction. I guess this is probably more of a comment but I think last time you were here we gave pretty explicit direction that we wanted a revision to stay out of the primary zone. The existing primary zone as the city saw the boundary. So with that do you feel the Planning Commission gave no good direction? Todd Simning: I think I was referring to city staff at the time where we took your direction and that's what we were going to run with, and then we got in the middle of that and it was just like, between city staff, everybody was fighting with what exactly somebody wanted to see or not see and you had 2 people for it, 2 against it and we kept 21 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 going back and forth on it so I don't think it was necessarily the Planning Commission that was stating that didn't give us good direction. It was mainly once we went out of that and we were trying to incorporate the ideas, it was going nowhere and that's where we ended up coming back to this plan which again we feel is a better alternative. Lillehaug: Okay. I think that's all I have, thanks. Sacchet: Okay. Who else wants to ask questions? Feik: I'll ask. I want to touch base on that NURP pond on the north side. From a marketability perspective, assuming for just a moment that Lots 1, 2 and 3 are included as generally proposed or at least as proposed on the alternative plan. From a marketability perspective, a desirability perspective, of the two plans for both sale and for a resident to be living there, which do you think is the superior plan? Todd Simning: I'd take the plan in front of you over the alternative and the reason that I would is that, yes the pond is a nice amenity that somebody could have in their back yard, okay. But that's for a limited number of units that might be there. I think there's probably 1, 2, 3, maybe 4 that kind of get that benefit so to speak Whereas by putting it on the north side, what we're able to do is actually take the units that abut West 78°i Street and actually move those further away from West 786' Street, and there's more units that actually benefit from that and I think overall that the city actually benefits from it also because as an aesthetic point of view as you're driving down the road, it's going to look a lot nicer if in fact the units are a little bit further away from the road than sitting right on it, so that's as far as marketing goes and I know we know marketing since we sell a fair amount of product. Feik: And the, I'll ask the question direct, the 3 lots. Does that kill the deal? Todd Simning: Absolutely. Feik: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah Bethany, go ahead. Tjornhom: One thing that hasn't been addressed, and I'm going to go with the scenario that everything was approved with the lots in the primary zone. Staff was concerned about how you were going to differentiate the different buildings, and did you work that out with them so they have an idea as to how they would aesthetically compliment each other and make a nice neighborhood? Todd Simning: We did not have an opportunity to discuss that yet. We'd actually, I just got the report I think on Friday from Bob. It may have been in Saturday's mail too, and I know that was part of the last conditions and I guess I didn't put big, you know a number one issue because I thought that'd be very easy to come to terms with different colorings and that sort of thing and that's part of what our developments are is Kroiss 22 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Development. I mean we automatically hold ourselves to a different level and so I didn't see that as really an issue for us so. Slagle: I've got a quick question Todd, you were able to have a couple of those GIS photos. Can I look, or can you put one up. What I'm just trying to determine is there a connection on that trail to the north into the Pulte, and I think I saw that there was before Century. Papke: Yeah it is. It's over on the east side. I've actually walked back there on the property Slagle: Go further east. Yeah, there you go. Todd Sinning: Commissioner Slagle, it comes right through this area. Our's is going to come down the north and the actual, the park board actually owns the property inbetween our's and this trail and that I think is what Bob was alluding to. That once this is put in, that they will finish the connection all the way down to the trail. Slagle: Okay, great. It's good to see that. I'm just still, to be honest with you Todd, just still wondering about the alternative plan. And actually, and I'll share with you, I'm not so much thinking about it because of the primary. I'm just thinking about it from an aesthetics standpoint and maybe what I'll call impact. Sacchet: Any points Craig? Claybaugh: Yes sir. Last time you were in front of us there was some discussion with respect to the height of the retaining walls which was driven by the touch down points which was the NURP pond and I believe that was the primary touch down point that was established in the road elevation. Todd Simning: Correct. Claybaugh: Which led to the retaining wall height. One of the conditions with the alternative plan was to mitigate the build up on the site. When I look through the alternative plan and look to your submitted plan I see the same road height elevation of 1010. Can you explain how that pans out? How you achieved it this time where you weren't able to achieve it apparently last time? Todd Simning: I'm going to defer that to Ed over here, the engineering just for a second. Ed Hasek: Ed Hasek, Westwood Professional Services. I am not an engineer, just so you know. Claybaugh: You're forgiven. 23 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Ed Hasek: But I will do the best that I can. Part of our discussions with the city and the reason why the wall exists in the first place is because of the elevation that we were trying to achieve as basement walkouts for the units that were adjacent to 78th. What we did was to basically leave the road alone but in discussions with the park board and the city were able to eliminate the wall because we could grade into city property which is to our east. The city actually owns the lot between our property line and the lots that Pulte built on. I don't know if that tells you why the road didn't go up or down. Claybaugh: Yeah, that's a fair explanation for that. I was just, as you were stating that I was trying to correlate that with the impact. One of the things we were trying to do was mitigate the build-up on the site to try to save potentially more trees. The fact that the city is willing to allow you to grade the adjacent property to help mitigate that retaining wall doesn't address the underlying concern that I had. But it does answer the question. I'd like to come to the point that you made about the 300 foot setback, and in my experience I guess I would assign that to a broad brush type technique, because I know for a fact that that would put a lot of delineators out of business. I think in your experience you've certainly became aware that there's more considerations that go into establishing where that primary setback plants, hydrology. Certainly I'm not a hydrologist but in other projects you certainly must have run into delineation beyond a standard prescribed foot setback. Is that a fair statement? Todd Sinning: In most developments that we are in, whether it's in Shakopee, Eden Prairie, Victoria, Eden Prairie, we've had I would say on the whole very definitive answers about how to plot lots on a particular site. This is the only one that has been this broad stroked, and I understand the point about being broad stroked in a way, but I think this is one that's been a little too much. Claybaugh: Okay. Alright, I guess with respect to the alternate plan, I keep coming back to it myself as being appealing to me for the reasons that it does back physical properties out of the primary zone. I understand your point is well taken with respect to the storm sewer line that has to go down and extend through and it's going to take canopy coverage out. I'm assuming that with the lack of recommendation or the no recommendation for the plan on behalf of staff, no tree survey has been done at this point with respect to that? Todd Simning: Correct. Only on our property. The property between ourselves and the trail there that the city owns, we've done nothing, no. Claybaugh: Okay. And in your experience with respect to location of the NURP pond to the north, my recollection and being the site was, that the bam was located down there. Is it a fair assumption to say that in your opinion that that has been degraded? That area where you're looking at locating a NURP pond immediately has been degraded on some level by the activities of just it being a hobby farm. Todd Simning: Boy, you know I honestly I don't know how to answer that Commissioner. There is, you know we looked at the overall grading and what we would have to do, you know getting machinery around there and obviously part of it's open but Flo Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 in order to grade around and do what we need to do, there was still a significant amount of loss there. Claybaugh: Okay. Alright, that's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Go ahead Kurt. Papke: I'm sorry I brought up that alternative last time. It seems to be kind of a sticking point now. I'm just wondering if there isn't a better compromise here. I think many of us are hung up on the fact that the NURP pond on the north side just seemed to be a win/win scenario. That's where the barn is. That's where the corral is. There's this huge brush pile in that area. I mean it's a very unappealing area to preserve. How many trees are you proposing to put in that area on your plan here you show you know a give and a take. You've got kind of a tan colored area where you want to, you want the city to give up some of the primary area and you want to give back the area that you depict in green. I'm looking to see, is there a compromise here where you could do some more intensive restoration of the barn and corral area there in order to make it more of a give and take situation. Todd Simning: Absolutely. Papke: Could you expound on that a little bit? Todd Simning: I have no problem in the area planting more trees to make it, you know within reason because obviously you don't want to choke each other off because as the canopies grow and you know you envision out 15, 20, 25 years you don't want everything dying because everything's so close. But we have no problem bringing in enough trees to satisfy both ourselves, because people are going to be over looking the area and so it will be a naturally appealing area for our homeowners. As well as something that's going to be helping the city in reforesting, forestering, I guess I don't know how to say that but you know a certain area that may be didn't have as much canopy and one of the things that we deal with all the time is new growth. Everybody wants always to save old growth. Old growth. Old growth. Old growth. Well you know at some point in time we have to intermix the two to have a sustainable, renewable natural resource and people always forget that. You're always concerned with just the old tree you're taking down. You know what, in a lot of cases, if in fact we took out some of the old ones and put in saplings and that sort of thing to reforest it, we're going to be better off in the long run and I think that's part of the intent of the management program of looking out 40 years and saying what do we want to see? Sacchet: Go ahead Rich Slagle: Quick question. Todd, you're honest answer if you wouldn't mind. The units to the south under your proposed plan that would have the pond behind them, I mean is that important? In the scale of like a 1 to 10, is that an 8, 9, 10 that they have pond behind them as far as the success of the development? 25 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Todd Simning: On the south side, if I understand correctly, the pond is to the south of it and then the units are to the north. That they had a pond, no. As long as I was far enough off the mad, I think that that is more important than whether it had a pond or not to overlook. Slagle: Okay, with that answer then my question would be, would there be sufficient berming that you could do because I'm looking at right now of 4 feet or so. I mean would there be more berming that you could do that would, I mean I don't know what the difference of 10 feet or so more going north for those units, you know what I'm trying to say? That berming to the south of the units 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, would that, I mean would that alleviate some of those concerns if you bermed it more? Todd Sinning: You mean if in fact the, say we relocated a pond to the north? Slagle: Pond to the north, right. Todd Sinning: Okay, that's what I wasn't completely understanding. You know when you say will 4 feet, an extra 4 feet do? If in fact you look at the, what city planners and you guys deal with on a daily basis, developers come in here and they try to convince you that hey, I'm going to be putting up a berm here you know and I'm going to be shielding car lights and everything else. But in fact, I mean you guys have driven down your city streets and city roads and you can see that the berming that you try to do within a, say an extra 4 feet, really doesn't accomplish that much. I mean I've been disappointed with that dealing with, looking at other developments as they go into cities and it's like, god they're right on a boulevard and nobody's really doing anything, and the developer goes in and tries to convince guys, like yourselves, commissioners that, and City Council that hey, but we're doing a great job berming. But in reality you know when it gets done, it's really not much to shake a stick at. Slagle: But you wouldn't be like them would you? Todd Simning: Well no, I honestly I don't think we are. You know it might sound crazy but I really don't. Slagle: No, but I mean your berm would be a berm. Todd Simning: Well if in fact you did it, but you couldn't do it just an extra 4 feet. I mean you've got to make something that's going to be significant. Slagle: Sure. Okay. Sacchet: Craig, are you itching... Claybaugh: No, I was just thinking the one exception would be the Federal Courthouse. With respect to the berming. 26 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Sacchet: I have some questions, actually mostly the questions I asked of staff. I know one thing that really perplexes me is what you brought last time to us was grading had 50 percent of the site, and I'm struggling with this one now says you're grading 70 percent. Todd Simning: The majority of that commissioner comes in the grading of the trail system along side 41, and that wasn't anything that was taken into account on the last one. That's one of the other reasons why we ended up with the greatly improved plan where we take down another 11 percent of the trees. It actually expanded out in the grading of the site also. Sacchet: So yeah, I'm aware that that's a component but it also appears to me that you greatly reduce, if not largely eliminated the tree buffer to the west. Todd Simning: With the. Sacchet: From both sides though. Todd Simning: With the gosh, what do you call it? With the trail over on the side. Sacchet: On the west side but it seems also the units are actually further moved west. Isn't it? Todd Simning: What were they before? Ed Hasek: I don't know, I think the first time probably in the 70 to 80. Todd Simning: Okay. So yeah, another 20 feet. Sacchet: Because at this point I'm looking at this, it seems like you're taking out literally all the big trees on the west side, and there's going to be a sliver of vegetation left. However valuable that will be would remain to be seen. But anyhow, so that explains somewhat increase of that. Now the other thing that I asked of staff, that really doesn't compute for me is that the figures given us as tree preservation stays the same. You know it's 28 percent last time. It's 28 percent this time, however this time you're taking all the white pines to the tune of about 10 of them, you're taking out more big oaks. More big maples and reducing canopy further, pretty much eliminating the canopy to the west and it's still the same percentage. To me that seems not real. Okay, I don't know. I mean that's an element from the staff report and staff wasn't able to respond to that so I don't know whether it's fair to ask you that question but if you have anything to add to that, it sure would help me. Todd Sinning: Okay. Ed. Ed Hasek: Okay, I'm going to just ask you to ask me the question one more time so I can... 27 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Sacchet: Okay. What I'm struggling with is the fact that in the current staff report the tree preservation is quantified as 28 percent. 1.81 acres. And in the last time's proposal it was also 28 percent. I think it was 1.82 acres or something like that, so it's basically the same and I can't reconcile that frankly logically with looking at how much more canopy you're taking down. How much more trees you're taking down than you did propose last time, because really I only found 2 trees that you claim you saved that last time you were not saving, and actually we would want to address those specifically because I question the viability of that proposal. It's tree number 7258 and 7259, those two maples that we specifically address last time. At this point you're listing them as saved, however one of them is literally on the deck of unit, which unit is that? Unit 1 of Block 3, and the other one, 7259 is way closer than is practical and much closer than the good number of ones you're actually taking out. Ed Hasek: I think, I don't know that I can completely answer that question for you because I don't know where the numbers in the staff report. Sacchet: Understand. Understand. Ed Hasek: But the one tree that we have counted behind unit 1 in Block 3, actually is, we do propose saving that. What we've done and it does not show in the plan, and that is my problem, not your's, is we are going to move the deck and the porch to the side. Sacchet: Oh, to the side of the building. Ed Hasek: To the side of the building. Sacchet: That explains that. That's a good idea. Okay. That addresses that concern to some extent. It's still closer. Ed Hasek: I just lost my commission. Sacchet: It's still closer to the building than some of the other ones that you actually, some on the western side you pretty much mark all the trees that last time were preserved like 8307, 8306, 8305 which are much further west from buildings than these two maples. Ed Hasek: Right. The option that we're going to look at, and I think when this comes down to it, we made a statement that we are making a commitment to save as many trees as we possibly can, and we are going in fact to do that. The question comes up, can we effectively build some walls around some of the trees behind the units that back up to County Road 41, and we really will not know that effectively until we get into the field. The reason is because we don't want to drain water directly on the base of a wall. All it's going to do is wash that wall out. Okay. So that's, I'm going to continue to count them as gone until I know that they're not gone and that's a safer bet than telling you that they're going to stay and then having you walk out. W-1 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Sacchet: Definitely a reasonable approach to take. Go ahead Rich. Slagle: Can I ask a question about those units 9, 10 and 11? You mentioned from the former to the current plan they've been moved westward some 20-30 feet. Can I ask why? Ed Hasek: 9, 10 and 11. Are we talking about 1, 2 and 3 in Block 1? The... Feik: They're numbered differently on the two plans. Slagle: Ob, okay. I'm sorry, 1, 2 and 3. Ed Hasek: 1, 2 and 3. Slagle: Yep. Ed Hasek: Right. What we needed to do in order to maintain 18 units on this plan is to pull these units, the, what is that, the 7 units that are south of the road, as far south as we possibly could and still maintain some distance between them and get the curve for the road far enough away from the building and the sidewalk far enough away from the building so it makes some sense. What happened is when we came into the site originally, we had a very flat curve and it came about 20 or 30 feet closer, farther to the east. In order to make it work we had to push the road over and in the process of doing that the buildings went with it. Sacchet: Any other aspects you want to add to this? Go ahead Todd. Are we done with questions? Claybaugh: Maybe more of a housekeeping question at this point for staff and that is, I don't believe that we responded to the developer's point regarding hammer head tum around and I believe condition 28, and subsequent condition number 7 on page 19. The condition 28 is located on page 17 of 19. Condition 7 is located on page 19 of 19. And if it's possible for staff or engineering. I understand that engineering, or Matt who was here last time isn't present now. I don't know if that can be responded to. Perhaps you can respond to it Bob. Generous: Well it can be provided that the units are sprinkled. You don't need to meet the requirement for the hammer head. Sacchet: So that's a reasonable request under that circumstance? Generous: Yes. However it's my understanding that not all the units, I wasn't sure if they'd all meet. Claybaugh: That's where the conflict was, as I understood the developer to say that all the units were in fact going to be sprinkled. And my question to the developer is that. 29 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Todd Simning: All units are going to be sprinkled. Claybaugh: And that's expressed in your plans? Todd Simning: That is correct. Well actually and it doesn't state it here so, if you guys wanted to put that in there as a condition or whatever, I mean we're going to automatically do it. Claybaugh: ...response to it not being included on the drawing. Todd Simning: I mean we don't want to do it for one and then not the other. Sacchet: Go ahead Paul. Oehme: The issue of the hammer head, are you considering not to, taking the hammer head out completely? Is that what you're proposing? Todd Simning: Potentially, yes. But basically just not meeting what a standard would be for a fire truck to get back and around, and that was from our last, Matt and I can't remember what the other guy's name said that that was something that could be done. Oehme: From an engineering perspective I think that, if it doesn't, if we don't need to, if it meets our fire code requirements, that's fine. I mean we still need I think a hammer head out there for garbage trucks, delivery trucks, those type of vehicles to back up and turn around in. I would hate to see larger vehicles having to back up all the way to 78th Street to exit the development. Todd Simning: Us too so I mean our intention is to have it there, we've got construction going on anyway so I just wanted to clarify that it doesn't have to meet. Claybaugh: I understood that you weren't necessarily looking to build it to fire truck standards, but you wanted some relief on that but it would be there for deliveries, groceries and some of the items that Paul had alluded to. Todd Simning: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. You had more questions Steve. Lillehaug: Yes I do. Sacchet: And then you wanted to add something. Todd Simning: Yes. Sacchet: Which one go first? Go ahead. 30 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Todd Simning: I don't know, maybe I should let you go first. Lillehaug: Well, I left this one alone previously in our last meeting but you guys opened it back up because he said the city owns Outlot G directly to the east of your property. Is that correct? Todd Simning: Correct. Lillehaug: Okay then, I'm going back to my previous recommendation that we should be providing access off of Century Trail. Previously you said that was not owned by the city, it was just a simple easement. Now that it's owned by the city, that we found out that, I would not support having access off of West 780i Street because it would be adequate to provide access off of Century Trail. Would you care to comment on that? Todd Simning: I think I would actually, I don't know what to say on that one I guess. Slagle: Would that be positive? Todd Sinning: I don't know. Sacchet: You need to think through it first I'm afraid. Todd Sinning: Yeah kind of, and actually it seems as a private street, it seems a little odd just sewing it back and around onto Century Trail. Lillehaug: I mean the closeness to the median as well as to the Trunk Highway 41. It's not an ideal access location. Obviously it's probably closer than 300 feet, which it would be on Century Trail but a lot less traffic obviously. Todd Simning: Yeah I guess it, you know the homeowners next door in the Arboretum Village I guess would be the most affected by it and it's hard for me to speak about that I guess. Sacchet: Did you have a comment about that Paul? Slagle: One thing if I can add to fellow commissioners, the properties to the west of this property across Highway 41, Westwood Church and soon to be other landowners will have an access at some point going west so West 78b will pick up in intensity and traffic. Sacchet: Good point. Lillehaug: Is West 780' Street a state aid road also? City state aid road? Generous: Yes. 31 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Lillehaug: It is. So the sidewalk would need a 2 foot area behind it rather than right on the property line correct? Yeah, that's correct. Sacchet: Any wisdom from our engineers? Oehme: Yeah, we were just looking at the, how that would tie into Century Trail a little bit. Just quickly looking at the grades, from Century Trail up to the existing, or the proposed grades of the new development, it will be right about 9 percent grade. Sacchet: If it has that elevation that is currently proposed. Not the natural elevation currently. Oehme: Exactly. So I mean just based on a quickly, our estimates on existing grades at Century Trail and the new development, it'd be a pretty steep incline up to the new development so. Sacchet: Alright. Did you have any other ones Steve or are you going to be... Go ahead, it's all your's. Todd Simning: Commissioners, one thing that my partner and I were just talking about, because we are cognizant of trying to save trees and make our site very sellable. One thing that wouldn't hurt us as much is if in fact we were to lose one unit, and a proposal on that would be that in order to, on the west side here, in order to bring these units back a little closer towards the east and save some of these, try to make certain that we really save some of these larger trees back here, we could actually come with two -3 unit buildings and just eliminate one at the end and shift everything over enough to try to accommodate that too. Sacchet: Let me make sure I understand. So you're saying it would be viable with 17 units, because we had initially when one of the first question I asked you, one of the first is whether it's viable with less units. Assuming at that point there was 3. You could live with minus 1 but not with minus 3? Todd Simning: Exactly. Sacchet: Could you live with minus 2? Todd Simning: No. Sacchet: Okay. I just want to be real clear here. Todd Simning: That's why I went back. I mean my partner and I just had a little pow wow back there and we know what we can or can't do and how it would and wouldn't work and again, and what we're trying to show also is that we're realistic about what we're trying to do and so anyway, with that. 32 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Sacchet: No, that's a very important comment. I mean if it gets, we're definitely looking for some give and take here. Todd Simning: So beyond that I don't have anything else unless you guys do. Sacchet: Well there's probably more going to come up but appreciate your presentation and trying to address all our questions. Now this is a public hearing so I'd like to invite anybody else who likes to address this item to please come forward. State your name and address for the record and we'll listen to what you have to say. Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister. I am the landowner so I do have quite a bit that I'd like to say. First of all I would like to ask the question to Bob. If when you talked about the 9 units, doesn't, in a twin home situation, doesn't single family automatically become twin home? You can use the same formula? Generous: No. Susan McAllister: No? So if something's 9, it can't become 18 automatically? Generous: No. Well, when they asked me to calculate it based on an RSF zoning, which is a 15,000 square foot lot and I used 2.42 units per acre. Twin homes are 10,000 square foot per unit so it would be closer to 4 units an acre, so different calculation. ...math equation too. Susan McAllister: Okay. I'm just going to read a little bit of how the primary zone might have gotten to where it is I guess. My head is spinning a little bit too but the city code amendment transcription okay for the Bluff Creek Overlay District first reading, it was City Council meeting February 23d of 1998. Kate Aanenson is talking with Mark, who is he? Koegler, is that how you say it Bob? Yeah, didn't he write the ordinance or help write the ordinance? What did he do? Generous: He drafted the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Susan McAllister: Okay. Kate Aanenson and Mayor Mancino. Okay, the two different zones. Yeah, I think when Mark goes through he would say a bit more clearly but let me just relate how this came about. How did the primary zone come about? Did it just appear on a map and all of a sudden it seemed to make sense? But the primary zone was delineated at the conservancy zone where conditions should be undisturbed and was found in that area of the primary zone is probably already encumbered by either water, or not encumbered by water. There was a wetland or a creek that ran through it. I don't have either one. There may be significant wildlife in the back of the glossary. An inventory was done of all wildlife in the area. Also plant species where I inventoried the diversity in those areas were maybe was a larger concentration of those that affected where the corridor went. In reality, there's nothing different between you know my entire property has got you know the same thing on it. The deer are either eating the trees or they're out in my grass eating the grass, so I mean there's no difference. And then I'm 33 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 going to go on, okay. They talk about how it needs to minimize, Mark is saying, he would like to, he needs to minimize the impacts to the property as well but certainly not to preclude the development of the area. I'm going to get to a really important one here real quick. Mayor Mancino. My other question is, on delineation of the primary zone. At the time of when an applicant comes in. When we delineate a wetland they're very you know, everyone knows the definition of a wetland. The plants are in there. How much water, etc. What is going to be our definition of the primary zone? Are we going to be very specific about that so people know how to delineate it as much as the wetland? Okay. 'then he talks about, they talk about how lengthy it is, and Mark says, you raise a good point. There are some standards in here that I think Kate alluded to with regard to some of the species that are looked for and so forth we're delineating as part of the primary zone. So while there is quote unquote, no technical Bible so to speak for the primary zone or primary corridor delineation, this serves as a basis, okay. Kate says also, so there's an appendix in the back where the species were identified and that again is for, you can have somebody qualified to go but and say you know, that line seems a little bit arbitrary. It should be back further and if they can demonstrate that, and we can, there's some valid documentation, then we will certainly review that. Again a point we believe it was some validity but certainly can be clarified. Some of this, you know it's a transcript, it doesn't really make, flow. Mayor Mancino. Kate, this is the most important one to me. Kate, now you can understand I was on this for a year we said 300 feet, and we went back and forth and we spent a year of our time telling what we thought should have started out being 150 feet, but then I doubled it to 300 feet okay? Because I thought that was a good amount and I was, you know I felt comfortable that I only had the northeast part of my property on the, would fall in the primary zone. I was willing to do a density transfer agreement for that part of the property only. Okay? That's why I was up there and I was part of it. And I'm also interested in preservation, okay. Okay. Mayor Mancino. I'll pass this copy if you'd like me to. Kate, you said that you talked to land owners in the area that will be affected by this. What was their, what has been their reaction? This is underlined in my notes. I mean I don't see any here tonight so, then Kate says, we did send this ordinance up to the builders association. Called several times for feedback, and then they go on to talk about you know, it's not important to what we're talking about right now but, so I think the builders who represent maybe some of the land owners are interested. I didn't go up there because I assumed it was going to be 300 feet. You know, and I am not a member of the builders association. I just you know, she was already suspicious as to why the land owners weren't there because I'll bet you any money that a lot of us thought that they were going to do what we, you know gave them direction to do. Let's see if I can go on any further with anything here. I don't think I have anything there. Then it talks on the, I think this is the ordinance. This is the ordinance and I don't know if this, I don't know the date of this so I apologize. There's no ordinance number. I know it is the you know. Generous: 286. Susan McAllister: Yeah, well it doesn't give the number so then it just talks about you know the same thing that Todd touched on. It says it's amended from time to time. Suitable balance. But it also says in the very end of it that open space shall compromise 34 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 100 percent of the area located within the primary zone. The city will establish the boundary for the primary zone using data provided by the applicant. Well I believe that these maps that were provided to you is my data to you. That the primary zone start out being 300 feet. I have, Bob's going to kill me for this but I've had this book for 3 years unfortunately, and it's a copy that they've probably been looking for forever, right Bob? But I'm being real truthful. Sacchet: ... pick up a few more Susan. Susan McAllister: I could just sneak it back in but no. Feik: Bob, what's the late fee on that book? Susan McAllister: I don't know but I mean, and I don't know if I have to, I'm just going to for the heck of it, read that it's the 300 feet and then we go into, I'm just you know we have to kind of like go over this a little bit. Do you have like the... I have the one that's got the red lines going around the 300 feet area. Here is my property is right here. Do you see how much primary and secondary zone is there? This is the reason why I did not come up to the readings of the ordinance because I assumed it would only be that instead of this. This is the tree line and you just went that far and that's where you just figured that you know everything ended up and it's true. I mean there is trees there and the animals and everything else are there but they wander all, it's my grass. Believe me I'm not making this up. Buffer strips of 50 or 100 feet should be ... Bluff Creek, you know and so we could talk about the buffer strip for about, to protect the primary zone. And we were really interested in definitely finding a way to protect the primary zone. If we start out it being 300 feet and we have like the buffer strip, that buffer strip should protect the primary zone so that is what I went up there for a year and I was willing to give you know, and take as a density transfer type of situation. But so what I'm saying is according to Section 20-1472 under the open space requirements that I am saying the city will establish the boundary for the primary zone using data provided by the applicant. I have just provided you with data. It doesn't match up to what you have but I believe that my data is the original data, and now I'm going to read a little bit of the report that you know came to me on Friday about how you keep establishing the primary zone. It says, on page 3 of 19, second paragraph down, however the primary zone is intended to be preserved in it's existing state and expanded and protected if possible. So therefore the primary zone keeps growing. And now, one of the you know interesting things that we talked about when we were on this steering committee is that we would not take somebody's land because you can either call it the primary zone or you can call it just eminent domain. Going under the guise of the primary zone. And this really is very, very upsetting to me because it's become significantly misconstrued, okay. And I just don't think it's fair that almost half of my property, you know according to you people has ended up in the primary and second zone. I just, it's wherever my trees ended up. I could have cut down the trees and I wouldn't have been in this problem. I mean before they put the ordinance in, if I was afraid of it, I would have. I wasn't afraid of it. I didn't show up. I have these transcripts that you obviously can look at them if you would wish to. And I guess right now I don't really have anything further to say other than I don't 35 Planning Commission Meering — March 2, 2004 believe that we should take out any units. I believe the city is wrong and I think that I have been bait and switch just like I said. Because I have given you documentation as to in the beginning how it became on the northeast comer. Then I went out and you know, Scott and I did the walking of the 300 feet just to make sure that I was right. Then we went to the GIS department of Carver County to make sure I was right. I'm right. You people are wrong. I don't think that we should take out 18 units. In fact I believe I should have more than 18 units, and I'm willing, I was willing to give that northeast comer of my property to the city because I do believe in protection, but I don't want to give away my property. Somebody came to my house once, they said oh. You have a, he was dumping off a dumpster for me. He says oh you have a prime piece of property. You should be getting a little bit of money for. And I go yeah, that's exactly what the problem is. I have a prime piece of property and I am getting a little bit of money for it so I think that if you do anything according to what your charts are, that you're taking my land, and I expect to get paid for it and you can drop the money off by putting it in the mail at the bottom of my letterhead so that's all I have to say and I really wish that it would be better than this but I'm really disappointed so. Lillehaug: Could I ask a question? Sacchet: I would say let's go on with the, question for Susan? Lillehaug: Yes. Sacchet: Oh yes, by all means. Lillehaug: Through your negotiations and dealings with the city, did any city staff guarantee you that your land would be zoned PUD with higher density in lieu of being zoned as it currently is guided as RSF? Susan McAllister: I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Lillehaug: Higher density. Obviously you're getting 18 units on your property and it's not guided that. Susan McAllister: Okay they told us, no, okay. Yes. They told us in order to get the primary zone, if I'm thinking that you're saying what I'm supposed to interpret you as saying, is that in order to get the primary zone and the secondary zone you can build, but in order to get the primary zone I would be traded you know density that I could have used on the part that I'm giving up and I would be compensated for that. It says right in the, it says it in the book. You know you can refer to my letter. I've got it right from this book that personal property rights will be respected, and it was not to be a taking. We specifically did not want to be a part of that. We did not want to be a part of that. And then when the mayor, or not the mayor. The city engineer, or not engineer. The attorney at that time said, you know it will only take me 2 days to do a taking. We were really, really, really, upset about that. We did not want to have anybody's property taken. All 36 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 we're doing is protecting the corridor before it gets down to the Seminary Fen. I mean this is what the deal is. Lillehaug: I guess what I'm saying. Susan McAllister: Is that what your question, no? No? Lillehaug: Right now your property is guided as RSF, which Bob indicated is only about 9 units and you're asking for 18 units to preserve these trees. Susan McAllister: Well yes, that's right. And that's. Lillehaug: That's one of the main reasons is to preserve these trees is going from 9 units to 18 units is to preserve these trees and preserve the primary zone as the city has defined it. Susan McAllister: Well, to preserve the primary zone. I don't know, I don't agree with necessarily as the city has defined it. I mean I can show you that Pulte was allowed to take out quite a bit of homes actually there in the primary zone. If you'd like I would refer to those maps. Lillehaug: I think we've seen that, yeah. I agree with that. Susan McAllister: So I'm asking you to treat me you know like, not to be arbitrary. Arbitrary and capricious to me. I'm asking you not to be because I don't think that's right. I want to be treated as you know fairly as possible with what Pulte did. It wasn't easy for me to you know, be where I was and to allow this you know, what happened with the land that was to the east of me and so on and to see everything, that was quite a bit of very moist land there and I put up a lot of stuff because I did it for the betterment of my community. Not because I was selfish. Never did I think I was going to be standing in front of you either but, so I feel real comfortable saying that, and I just would like you to know that I don't believe that I am, I certainly would not hope that you would make us take out that one unit. I believe that there could be more because it's a nice development. Okay? Anybody else anything else? No. Sacchet: Thank you very much Susan. Appreciate it. Now this is a public hearing. Does anybody else want to address this item. Please come forward. State your name and address. Seeing nobody, I will close the public hearing. And bring it back to commissioners for discussion, comments. Who wants to start with this one? Slagle: I have a quick question. Sacchet: Sure. Slagle: Bob if I may, and if you have the answer that'd be wonderful. I think it's safe to say the applicant raises what I would term a fair question as to how the primary zone was 37 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 determined. Can you share with us in your own words, I mean especially in what I will call their northwest comer of their property. I mean how those lines were determined. Who did that? Generous: Lori, Jill and I met with their engineer on site to look at where the property, where that primary zone boundary should be based on the existing development. Slagle: Is that engineer here? Generous: No. Slagle: No, okay. And so again, if I can ask, so you guys are walking and you're discussing and taking notes and what not. Was there any evidence at that point that I mean this person's like no, no, no, or was, I'm just curious. Generous: Well just on the margins there were some disagreement. Slagle: Okay. Okay, that's all. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Kind of a related question. What's the process for someone like Susan to appeal the delineation of this boundary. You know she had documentation of this. As she stated she had this document for the last 3 years. Would there have been any opportunity for her before coming to the Planning Commission with this development to somehow appeal the delineation of that boundary as it's documented. Generous: Well the final delineation's not done until a development proposal comes in so if she wanted to establish that, yes. She could have hired a, what is it? It's Section 20- 1555 of our ordinance. Then you get someone who's qualified in watershed zone boundary determination to go out and actually map it or stake it and have that surveyed. Slagle: Can I just ask, and to my fellow commissioners. Doesn't it seem a little awkward that we would wait til development comes in to delineate the boundaries versus letting developers know ahead of time where they can build? Generous: And that's what the map and the study did. They tried to provide a generalized map for where it is. It lets people be aware that this is the approximate location but until you do the actual survey of a property you can't know for certain. Claybaugh: If I can add too. That also alerts a developer when they're getting close. Certainly there's historical mapping for wetland areas. Could you possibly discuss the difference between delineating the primary zone and delineating a wetland. Is there, with respect to the criteria. Physically the process of delineating is going on like you said, in a group of people typically. An engineer representing the developer physically walking the site. Looking to determine whether this is a wetland ... will be the primary tI3 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 zone area and is discussed as you physically walk the site. They tag it. Then they do the coordinates and then they map it. Generous: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay. Generous: And the distinction with wetlands there's specific criteria in the wetland conservation act that defines what a wetland is. Under this it's more open because it's flora and fauna topography. You know what's going to contribute directly to the primary zone, so there's a little more. Claybaugh: So it's part, or pardon me. It's part art as much as it is science, is that accurate? Generous: That's correct. Claybaugh: Okay. Feik: I had another question on that. I was going to say, do you have the original map which showed the delineation as derived a couple years ago? Lillehaug: Bob, while you're looking there, can you also comment on the magic number 300 feet is being thrown around. I guess I haven't, staff has commented on that number. Is that a legit initial number that was documented anywhere or where did we come up with that? And why is it such in great deviation from 300 feet from what it actually is delineated as? Generous: Well the 300 feet's easy. That was just a number they started out to work with. However, like I said originally, the primary zone could be 10 feet wide or it could be a quarter mile. It really takes into account all these other environmental features, and if you look at our map you have areas where the zone goes way out. It includes no wetland but it may be a forested hill that was included as part of the corridor. Slagle: Bob, let me ask a quick question if I may. If you take a look at the GIS information that the applicant showed, and compared Pulte, those 3 or 4 units that were to the east of the applicant's property and their proximity to what I will call the Bluff Creek, and then we go to the west and we have this area that is in dispute if you will, I mean to me as just an objective observer, it would seem to me that we allowed a previous developer to get a lot closer than we're even contemplating with this developer. Is that a fair statement? Generous: Well I wasn't. Slagle: I understand you weren't there. 97E Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Generous: I'm not familiar that they did based on the information that's provided, it's possible. I did find the map on it. Actually more of this property was shown in the original Bluff Creek study as being in the primary zone. They went more southwesterly as it crossed the property. It started in the treed area but it kind of stopped, the house straight to Highway 41 and came down. We're saying that it actually cuts up to the north on the western side of it. Feik: So we're looking at the outline. Generous: ...green line in here is the primary zone. So as part of this study that's what they were talking about. I don't know how that corresponds with 300 feet because obviously based on their GIS that wasn't contemplated as part of the. Sacchet: Let me just clarify, because I think this is important. What you're saying here on this map, the delineation is actually is further south than we have it now? You say it's pretty much going through the house actually. Generous: That's what it appears to on this map, yes. Sacchet: So in this particular case it would actually be the other way around. Would it be more stringent, not less stringent? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: That's interesting. Well, there's a few things and I'd like to jump in here a little bit. Usually I look for everybody else to make comments fust but this is convoluted enough that I'd like to put some stakes in the ground here because we're just all over the map with this one. First of all I want to remind us all, in my opening statements we review applications based on the standards in our city codes and ordinances. We do not have the discretion to change those rules as part of this review process, okay? I think that's one fundamental rule we have to consider. What our role here is at the Planning Commission. We're reviewing proposal in front of us as to how they apply to the rules of the city, the ordinances, the code and as part of that review it's not our discretion to change those rules. Okay? Another aspect taken, I think that's a very heavy word that was coming into this discussion and it keeps coming up over the years every so often. Now reasonable use. What we're talking about is reasonable use. And we run into that repeatedly. Reasonable use does not mean maximal use. There have been court cases that I remember in ... government trainings I went to where the dispute was over reasonable use and reasonable use could be to have a bench out there to enjoy nature. If you want to go real extreme. Now I'm not saying that's where we're going here, but reasonable use does not mean the maximum density possible. As a matter of fact I consider it part of our responsibility to balance what is reasonable use in view of the developer's interest, the owners interest, the city's interest, nature's interest, everything as far as you can go. That's our responsibility. Let's see. What else in terms of fundamental things here. One thing I'm really struggling with, we're all struggling with Em Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 is location of the primary zone. And there are really other fundamental things here that are being questioned that I consider way out of scope of what our domain is to make a decision about here, so I'm struggling with where we go with this and we have a proposal in staff in front of us that takes up to 3 units which in no doubtful terms has been clarified once by the applicant is a no go. Kills the project. We've seen some willingness of give and take by the developer saying that well maybe one unit could be given up to preserve some more, so there is a clear willingness to incorporate and go somewhere with this. However, the proposal in front of us by staff I think it's neither fish nor bird, as we would say in Switzerland. It doesn't fly, it doesn't swim. Claybaugh: Come again please. Sacchet: By taking out 2 units you're basically killing it so if we're supporting that I think we should be up front and honest about it and recommend denial, and not approval of something that obviously kills it. I'd much rather try to recommend approval of something that is doable but things are so all over the map here that I don't know whether we can get there. I doubt it at this point. So but now I'm getting into comments and I want to hear from you guys. Claybaugh: I'll start. My personal position is that I would not support any encroachment into the primary zone. That being said, I understand what the developer and what the owner is saying with respect to the delineation. And if that's their position I would encourage them, strongly encourage them to challenge the delineation. Whether you're challenging the process, challenging the field interpretation, or both. I strongly believe we're not qualified in this body here tonight to interpret how the delineation was done. How accurate it is or isn't. With that statement I feel it's out of the realm of what we can address here tonight with what you're putting in front of us. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Tjomhom: I'll just say that I feel bad about this because I think the developer really tried, obviously to go forward with what we had recommended from last time. It sounds like he had some complications with city staff. I don't know if that's true or not but if that's true, I'm sorry about that. But I too, I feel uncomfortable tonight because I feel like I'm having to be judge and jury over who's right with this boundary line. I mean is the city right or is the owner right? I believe what the owner says. I believe what the city says. I don't think I'm qualified to make that judgment on who's right and who's wrong. I wish someone was here that could tell me exactly what's going on. I probably believe that when this happened it probably was you know 300 feet, but maybe it spread, and that was one of my first questions. Maybe it didn't, I don't know but that was one of my first questions when, you know and so I feel like Craig but I can't decide. I wish I could, I'd like to help you but I don't feel like I can do it at this time. Susan McAllister: Can I just say one point? ...primary zone, that's where it was. Sacchet: Alright Susan. Do you have a comment Rich? 41 Planning Commission Meeting —March 2, 2004 Slagle: I do and I think where I would share with commissioners where I'm at with this is, I think with the question of primary zone, the important question that Commissioner Lillehaug asked about the property to the east because that was a question I had at our last meeting and was under the assumption that really nothing could be done with the property to the east, and I have, or had in my possession the GIS showing the Pulte development and almost all of those units, and I'm talking 12, 15, 20, 22 units are coming off side roads that are going onto Century Trail, Village Circle, Arboretum Village Trail. I have to say that I really wonder if the entrance and exit to this development shouldn't be off Century Trail. Now one could argue that we should either vote to approve or deny this. I guess my question is, in the hopes of working something out, is that something the applicant would be willing to think about if we tabled this? I don't know. That's where I'm at. Feik: Sure, I'll go next. First off, I'm fairly disappointed in city staff. A little bit in regards to the evaluation of the impact on the two different areas on the northern side of this primary zone. Had it been a NURP pond versus no impact versus taking the trees down where the 3 lots would go, and I don't, I know it's fairly subjective but I don't think it's a square foot is necessarily equal to a square foot up there based upon my reviewal. And I think had we had some of that information, I think it would have made my decision easier. Todd, you made a fairly eloquent point regarding your summing up some very significant points in our comp plan. But all of those, your argument was strictly based upon revisiting delineation of the primary zone. And your argument was equally strong, if we're not going to delineate the primary zone, then we should not proceed with any of these further assumptions. We would need, based upon your argument, we would need to tum this down in my mind. Based upon what you brought up, and I am not comfortable at this time proceeding with this. I would vote to disapprove. Sacchet: Okay. Steve. Lillehaug: I'll try to make mine quick. Looking at the preliminary plat it appeared to me that initially the applicant proposed a revised primary line that very closely following the existing tree line, so I thought we were in agreement with that previously, on where that revised proposed primary line was. It appears that it's changed inbetween then and now so I'm kind of miffed about that. Right now I'm simply, I'm not in favor of a PUD for this area. I do not think it results in a significantly higher quality or more sensitive proposal than RSF zoning would give here, so I would not support a PUD guidance in this case. And then, because you never know where these go, I want to make some specific comments that would need to be addressed if this were appealed and brought onto council for approval. Sacchet: Well this goes to council either way. Lillehaug: Then I want to make these even clearer. 42 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Slagle: But there's a third option, right? Sacchet: If the applicant brings it back. Well tabling, there's a question of time line but go ahead. Lillehaug: And I'm not in support of tabling this. We tabled it once. It came back in my mind worst and didn't address what we previously commented on and requested so I would not be in support of tabling this. So my specific comments would be, as Commissioner Slagle indicated, I would like to see the access come off of Century Trail, since the City does own Outlot G, as I'm learning tonight. West 78th Street, this is a specific comment that if that is a state aid route, which I think the city indicated, the concrete walk needs 2 foot inbetween the property line and the concrete walk, so I think the applicant would need to provide a trail easement because I don't think we'd want to shift that concrete walk any closer to the street. So I think the city would need to address that with the applicant. Also the trail on the southwest comer crosses onto private property, which parallels 41. That would need a trail easement also. Conditions 26(c) and 30, they seem redundant and contradictory as far as a sump manhole. Either request a 2 foot or 3 foot. MnDot requested the drive grade to be flatten so if the City Council were to approve this as it currently stands, I'd like to see that driveway grade flatten per MnDot's request. Not to the half percent that they requested but less than 7 percent. More in the neighborhood of 2 percent, and that's all I have, thank you. Papke: I think the last time we looked at this proposal I was the one that kind of pressed for the NURP pond on the north side. After seeing how this would work out with the storm sewer cutting through the Bluff Creek Overlay District I no longer believe that that's a wise way to proceed. I think that would be too injurious of Bluff Creek Overlay District. That said, I think that area where the applicant mentioned her manure pile is, I think there's an opportunity since that is one of the closest areas to the wetland, I think if I would be supportive of some sort of compromise where if the developer was willing to do some aggressive reforestation and improvement of that area in the trade off that's depicted on your colorful drawing here, I think that's a win/win scenario. It might take off a few maple trees but I think there would be a very large area in there that's currently very vacant that could be improved and could help improve the overall ecology of the area. But as it sits right now I can't vote for approval of this one. Sacchet: I already mentioned a few things of where I'm coming from with this in terms of my position about this. I have to admit I was disappointed when I got this package and studied it. And I don't know whether it's on staff's account or the application's account. I mean that's besides the point. It doesn't really make a difference. I definitely think it went the wrong direction. I mean there are some good reasons why it went from 50 percent grading to 70 percent grading, but that's a significant, that's a huge difference of having further impact on that. What is undisputably a sensitive natural area next to the Bluff Creek. I think that the idea of accessing from Century Trail, or maybe have two accesses. Century Trail and West 78th Street is a very good idea. That needs to be studied. It's very fundamental and with the dispute of where, or the potential dispute I should say, where this primary zone delineation, I think you made an excellent point with 43 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 some of your going's, like this one, where you delineate the 300 foot and how much of the Pulte development is within that. Very much in that frame and that with your proposal you would not even cut into it. I think that's very convincing. It's a very good documentation but that's simply not our decision here. Our decision is to look at your proposal so I'd like to encourage you to move forward with that. I also was very disappointed. I think the tree calculations just are not real Bob. I mean there's no way this can be 28 percent preserved this time and 28 percent preserved last time when this time we have an additional 10 big white pines taken out. We have an additional large oak. Very large oak. We have an additional large maple taken out and so forth. There is significantly more additional trees taken out. There are 2 or 3 trees saved, significant trees that were slated and then you explained how that was actually feasible. At first I thought it wasn't. So that needs to be looked at and that's a significant decision point in terms of being able to judge how sensitive we are to the environment here. The alternate plan with the pond on the north, you studied it. I trust your judgment. I would think it could maybe have studied a little further but it seems to me to sum up where I'm at with this that the proposal as it stands, we can't approve it. It doesn't meet the framework. In terms of the overall sensitivity. In terms of the delineations that we have to work with, we can't shift them around here to make our decisions. In terms of where they are, I don't think it's within the framework that we could say don't do it. The changes that you propose that would help mitigate it, like taking a unit out to shift the development a little bit out from the westerly border, it'd be a good step but that's a big change again that we don't know how that would out, and I think it's big enough that we would want to see it again. Now with the timeframe, not that I think tabling is necessarily a good solution but I don't think we even really have the timeframe Bob, can you help me out. I mean there's a clock ticking with this application. Generous: They need a final decision from the city by April 3`d. Unless they grant a written extension. Sacchet: I think it'd be the crisp position to take is that this proposal that's in front of us is, we can't approve it so we have to recommend denying. That's my personal opinion about this. As much as I regret doing this with this proposal. It obviously has a lot of quality to it and I trust that we can find a better solution. That's where I'm at with this. Slagle: Well and that's why I would like, if I can add Mr. Chairman. Sacchet: Certainly. There's still discussion. Slagle: The fellow commissioners that I would be supportive of tabling assuming that the applicant is okay just because of the hope and the belief that there will be some discussion. Hopefully some resolution on the delineation with staff. There could be some discussion about another entrance or the entrance moving to the east. Maybe it comes back that it's not what even staff thinks is right, but I'd rather just table it and get the feedback versus voting yes or no. Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Sacchet: I guess we should ask the applicant then whether you would potentially be willing to give us an extension in time. Because we're stuck between a hard rock and a place. Rock, a hard rock and a hard place. A rock and a hard place. There we go. Now I got it. Alright. That image you understand better than the bird and the fish. So yes, my question to the applicant, would you be willing to give us an extension in time. If necessary. I mean we do what we can. April 3'd, that's a month I mean. Todd Simning: And the issue that we face is that we're running out of time. We need to be moving dirt in May, or this is just a dead project. We grant an extension because we're tabled and we go back and we work with city staff and you know typically we've gotten pushed out. We should have been on a Planning Commission earlier and we were told by staff that they would put us on the previous Planning Commission meeting, and then we were called back about a week later saying oh, well now we've got too much on our plate and so you have to move back. And so every time that happens, I mean we're counting the clock and if it doesn't get done this year, it's just, you know we're not moving dirt by May it's just a dead project so, if we had assurances that you know we worked hard and we could get back here on a timely basis. You guys could look at things on a timely basis, that would be, we would be open to that, but just as an open ended, we want to table it and you know we'll see you in a month or month and a half, that's tough... Sacchet: Let's try to pin this down a little more. If we tabled this, as Commissioner Slagle proposes, how soon would we see this again Bob? Possibly. Generous: I would think the earliest would be the first meeting in April. Sacchet: The first meeting in April. Generous: ...tum it around for the Ie. Sacchet: The first meeting in April so it would go to City Council like middle April? Generous: Well the end of April. Sacchet: The end of April. Generous: And that's preliminary plat and then they have to final plat. Claybaugh: Also with respect to direction to the developer, are we in a position beyond if they can challenge the delineation, get that primary boundary relocated, then we have the issue with the encroachment on the trees to the west where we're looking at bumping the location of the road, and then we also have the issue with some of the commissioners want the developer to tie into Century Trail. That's going to affect your road elevation. Okay, you're going to have to drop that elevation down there, it's going to affect your walk out lots. So there's some complicated issues for every action there's a reaction, and 45 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 there isn't in my opinion a real straight forward direction that we can provide to the developer. Sacchet: If we table I would want to have more discussion between us right now to give the applicant some specific guidance. Claybaugh: If we feel we can do that adequately I'd be willing to support the tabling. If we're not able to, then I would not be in favor of it. Sacchet: Okay. Todd Sunning: And that is what we're looking for also as my partner and I are talking and we would want some sort of assurance that staff would work with us on relocating the primary zone. I mean we're not asking for much when it comes to the delineation of the primary zone, and I'm hard pressed to believe that staff could not work with us, but without an assurance we may as well just go onto City Council and go at her because we're just going to be knocking our heads for 2 weeks so. Lillehaug: Can I make another suggestion? Sacchet: Sure. We're still discussing. Thank you, but I want to sum up Todd's comment to make sure we're on the same page before we go on here. Todd, just I want you to hear this because I want to make sure I understood your position. Your position is that if we can give you some concise framework where we like to see you go with this, I mean you've got to be aware that City Council may look at it different than we do. I think we owe you some clarity if we would table. You have something to add? Feik: Not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing if we don't move the primary zone it doesn't go. If we don't redefine where that primary zone is, the project doesn't work. That's the lynch pin here. Claybaugh: In order to redefine, and re -delineate that property in an accurate manner, you have to go out there and be able to walk it, okay, and the weather isn't going to support that at this time. Am I correct in saying that? Generous: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay, so arbitrarily we would have to just look at it and not based on any facts, not based on any field surveys, just arbitrarily move that line. That's all we have to deal with given the month of the year and the fact that it isn't conducive to conducting a field survey to establish a new delineation. If in fact that is warranted, so. Lillehaug: So could I go? Saccbet: Yes, we're discussing. ER Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Lillehaug: Could I ask fellow commissioners to look at the preliminary plat sheet. 2 of 6, and Bob also in commenting. Sacchet: Thank Todd. Todd Simning: Thank you. Lillehaug: This proposed primary line that has actually been redefined by the applicant as shown on that preliminary plat, it follows the outline of the existing tree line that also the applicant defined with their survey. So you have the primary line that outlines the existing tree line. Bob, do you really see, you know based on the tree line and their interpretation of where the proposed primary line should be. Sacchet: This is what they're proposing. Lillehaug: Future proposed. Sacchet: Okay. Lillehaug: But existing. I should say. Sacchet: Is the tree line, yes. Lillehaug: Their revised existing primary that they're showing on their preliminary plat, because that's not the city's, you know that's not the city's existing primary line, according to the book or the overlay. Generous: Right. The tree line is what was agreed to as part of our site visit that exists, and Nann if you could show it. This line would be the primary zone. What they want to do is say this would become the primary zone. They'll be able to remove the trees in here. Lillehaug: But now the applicant is saying they want just that 300 foot area, which is just the northeast comer of their lot is the primary zone, and in my mind it doesn't look realistic if the true intent of that primary zone is to follow the outline of the existing trees, so my question is, do you really see city staff changing their position on where that primary line should be? Generous: I don't see that, no. Lillehaug: Okay. Generous: As they tell me, the primary zone is the primary zone. Sacchet: Commissioner Lillehaug, we have several stories here. I think we have what the landowner was explaining us, the primary zone, but I think what we're actually 47 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 discussing is what is on the map. If you can put that up there again Nann. And not engineer of the applicant, just highlight it. I don't know how to call you since you're not the engineer. Call you not the engineer. The green is what currently staff claims is the primary zone, and the orange, or whatever the reddish is what the applicant would like it to adjust the line to, so we're not talking just about the northeast comer. I mean that's a different aspect, and it's confusing because then when you look at the map and it actually goes the other way. It's all over the board... Todd Simning: Only one more, as staff continues to say that it's the tree line. Obviously it wasn't the tree line for Pulte. Susan McAllister: That's right. Thank you. Todd Simning: You know so I mean it isn't like we're you know again I'm talking to staff now. It isn't like, and Bob's not necessarily the one making the decision on all this but it isn't like we're asking for something that wasn't provided to somebody next door. Sacchet: Yeah, and you document pretty clearly that Pulte cut into it way more severe than this, and didn't necessarily add to it, like in your case it's almost a 1 to 1 add and take. Todd Simning: Correct. Sacchet: So I give you full credit for that. I mean that's definitely something that we need to look at, and. Lillehaug: Would we be setting a precedence though if we said okay, Pulte cut into it. Now we have to let these guys cut into it. Claybaugh: Yeah, that's an incredibly slippery slope. I don't believe anybody here, was anybody on the commission here? At the time that that went through. Sacchet: I was. Claybaugh: You're more familiar with that. My position would be what is delineated by staff is what I have to go by at this time. Again, if you wanted to challenge the delineation, I understand that you want to be turning dirt in the spring. That's prime consideration and I understand that's put you in a very tight spot. Hearing the latest discussion over the last few minutes, I believe the kindest and fairest thing to do would be to deny it. Send it to council where they have more latitude and allow staff to prepare and address some of the issues that came up here. That will give them an opportunity to possibly hit their time line. I'm not satisfied hearing the discussion here that tabling is going to get us any closer to a solution in a timely fashion that's going to meet the developer's needs. Sacchet: Any other comments? M Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Feik: I concur. I would agree with tabling. Tjornhom: Tabling? Feik: Do not agree with tabling, yes. I would move to deny. Sacchet: I came here thinking that way too. However based on the discussion we've had, and based on the willingness of the applicant to improve in terms of what we're pointing out the situation and the fact that we have some specific aspects that have not been studied. It has not been studied accessing this from what, Century Trail or what the road is. It has not been studied or looked at in detail I guess it would be closer to the previous proposal if you would have 6 units to the south side instead of 7, and therefore move those units on the west in a little bit. Preserve more buffer to the west. I mean that's not that big an impact. However accessing it from Century Trail would be a very big difference. Feik: Mr. Chair if I might. Sacchet: Please. Feik: The deadline on this is April what? Generous: Third. Feik: And if we were to table this and no action was taken between city staff and applicant, what would happen on April the 3'd9 Sacchet: It would be automatically considered approved. Feik: All the more reason to deny at this point. Sacchet: That's true. And we did not hear necessarily an agreement to an extension. Feik: Without a clear agreement of extension of the number of days, I would not support at all any tabling. Sacchet: That's a very reasonable position to take Bruce. Claybaugh: And I'd like to further clarify my position on that isn't a function of not liking the development overall. There's aspects of it that I strongly disagree with but I'm very impressed with the developer and I sincerely believe your best opportunity for success is to move forward beyond this body at this time. Sacchet: Okay. Any further discussion? Comments? Otherwise I'd like to see a motion. EE Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Feik: I'll make a motion. I think there's three. Do I have to do all three Bob? Generous: You can wrap them up. Sacchet: Actually there's five. Lillehaug: A through E. Feik: Well let's just do them one at a time. I move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council denial for the land use amendment from residential low density, low density residential to medium density contingent, period. Lillehaug: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the Land Use Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Medium Density. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2. Feik: Second motion. I move the Planning Commission recommends the City Council the denial of PUD #2003-3, rezoning of the property from agricultural estate district A2, to PUD. Residential PUD -R. Sacchet: Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny PUD#2003-3 rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Planned Unit Development -Residential, PUD -R. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2. Feik: Third motion. I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend, I move that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the denial of preliminary plat proposed for the development of Highlands of Bluff Creek, plans prepared by Westwood Development Services Inc. dated 10/31/03, revised 12/05/03, 12/17/03, and 2/03/04. Sacchet: Second? Papke: Second. Feik moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny preliminary plat for Highlands of Bluff Creek, plans prepared by 50 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 Westwood Development Services Inc. dated 10/31/03, revised 12/05/03, 12/17/03, and 2/03/04. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2. Feik: Fourth, I move the Planning Commission recommends the denial of conditional use permit #2003-10. Lillehaug: Second. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny Conditional Use Permit #2003-10. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2. Feik: And then lastly, I move the Planning Commission recommends the denial of Site Plan #2003-11... Lillehaug: Second. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny Site Plan #2003-11, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated December 17, 2003. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2. Sacchet: This is going to council on March 22°d. I do want to sum up why we're denying. I also want Rich and myself to make a statement why we were withholding. We are denying because we feel, and you've got to help me out. You who all voted for the denial. It's my understanding that we're denying because we have disagreement on the primary zone placement. We do not feel that's within our jurisdiction to move that around. And we don't think that within the timeframe available it will be reasonable to table this to clear this up. We have several of us that think that access to, is it called Century Trail. Generous: Yes. Sacchet: That access from Century Trail might be preferable to access from West 78a' Street or possibly desirable in addition to the access off West 78'b Street. That have not been studied. We would like to see that studied further. We find it encouraging that the applicant expressed willingness to drop one of the units to the south in order to push the development away from the westerly edge to preserve a reasonable buffer to Highway 41, which I think is very important. Some of the other concerns that I think we voiced that are important for City Council is that there is a definite feeling, perception on our part that we feel from when we tabled this and what we asked for, they went opposite direction. Most significantly some of the aspects, examples is that before 50 percent of the site was graded. Now 70 percent is graded. We cutting significantly more of the significant trees. We're cutting more. Not significantly more. We're definitely cutting more than we did before, while the idea was that maybe we'd cut less. There was some 51 Planning Commission Meeting — March 2, 2004 disappointment expressed by some of the commissioners here about that. Also, I personally found that the calculations for the tree preservation cannot be real because according to the figures, it's the same figures that he preserved last time as this time pretty much, even though there's significantly more trees being cut. Let's see. Anything else we need to add to this? Yes, Craig. Claybaugh: I'd like to add one point. I believe that through, certainly through this second meeting that the discussions and the parameters have absolutely mushroomed and I question whether this body can any longer get their arms around it and hopefully staff, working with the developer can prepare and address some of these areas of concern and hopefully put in their proper context and either, whether it be the connection with Century Road. Address that and either address it aggressively or remove it from the table so there's not so many issues to cloud the judgment of the City Council. That's my comments. Sacchet: Okay, any other comments? Yes Bruce. Feik: One. If the City Council were to discuss this, I would recommend highly that the City Forester is there to answer questions directly. If the City Forester is not there, I would recommend that the City Council to deny it. Sacchet: Okay. Rich, why did you withhold? Slagle: Well I think simply put, the reasons that are given for denial I think are reasons to have tabled it because obviously from our first direction to today, it didn't go quite the way we thought. Instead of giving it to the council primarily because of the timeframe issue, my opinion is it sent back to staff and applicant to work it out. They come back to us. We go through it again. I mean sometimes the 60 day rule forces projects to be okay, denied and in some respects I'm not sure it's given it's fair due, especially when you make recommendations and then they don't come back the way you thought you would see them so. Sacchet: My personal reasons for withholding are that I really would like to see some of these parameters studied that we pointed out. Understand that with the timeframe that is very tricky. I would have personally, after all this discussion tonight, I would have preferred us defining these parameters a little more clearly to the point that the applicant could work within, turn it around very quickly, but I have, ultimately have to agree with the rest of you that within the timeframe and the fact that the applicant did not really make a clear statement that they were willing to extend the time frame, we were pretty much forced into, we really didn't have too many options and I think the same will apply for council. With that, I would like to take a 5 minute recess before we go to the third item on our agenda. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) 52 I `�Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 ( \ PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL - DISTRICT, PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) 18 TOWNHOUSE LOTS AND OUTLOTS: AND A VARIANCE FROM THE PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT. LLC. Public Present: Name Address Jeff Russell 7632 Arboretum Village Circle Mike Ryan 2595 Southern Court Todd Simning Plowshares Development Ed Hasek, Westwood Professional Services Eden Prairie Brent Hiscox Plowshares Development Susan McAllister 2930 West 78s' Street Scott Bemas, Edina Realty 6800 France Avenue So Holly Huber 2828 Coach Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Lillehaug: Sure, I'll start. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Bob, could you explain what the adjusted, maybe you already did and I missed it. What the adjusted Bluff Creek Overlay District boundaries per city staff. What does that really mean? And I'm looking on page 2 of 6 of the preliminary plat. Are you familiar with what I'm talking about there? Okay. Generous: The applicant is proposing that to change the primary zone boundary by moving these trees out we would create a new boundary and I tried to show this in the lined area. In addition the boundary goes down in here and he would propose that that boundary be expanded to the south and it's sort of like an exchange of area. Now it is an alternative and it's you know, a policy decision whether the Planning Commission and 27 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 council wants to go forward with that. Our environmental staff did recommend that the primary zone boundary is what it is and that we keep that and work from there. Papke: Clarification on that issue. The area that's proposed by the applicant to be added to the overlay district, is that where the barn is sited? Generous: Right, and the corral area. The open area that's there. Papke: So what they're proposing to do is take out the barn, remove the barn and then attempt to reforest that. Generous: Vegetate, right exactly. Fill in that canopy covered area. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Well I think my bigger question, I want to make a quick comment is, one of my pet peeves here. I mean if you look at this report, it's a good report. But we've got way too many conditions. I think what's going to happen here is just like in the last application. I mean just a simple thing like an underground storm system that's no longer there. Well we've got 48 conditions here. I mean I don't have any confidence in what's the end product going to be. I don't have a clue. We've got 48 conditions. My main question here is, if staff is going to try to recommend pushing Lots 4, 5 and 6 out of that and enforce the setback, am I following that correctly? Can that be done without really changing this whole site plan and kind of keeping this same picture here? I mean I don't see that happening, so what are we looking at? I mean are we really going to be looking at the final product here? I don't think we would be. Generous: No. Either, well one way to comply would be to remove those 2 lots. That'd be simple and we'd see what the results are at best. Another way is to revise the plat. Shift it down and go with twins or some other alternative. I don't know. We'll leave that up to them to resolve. Lillehaug: Has this been discussed with the applicant already? Generous: We told them that this has been an issue. They wanted to come forward and see you know, again they're presenting an alternative that would change the boundaries and would be reasonable. Sacchet: They're seeing where we go for it basically. Lillehaug: So I mean I have a lot of, there's 48 plus conditions here. I have a lot of questions. Claybaugh: That's on one of the motions. There's 5 motions. 48 out of just one of the motions. W Planning Commission Meeting— January 6, 2004 Generous: On the plat. Sacchet: So maybe we should take this in steps rather than try to be exhaustive. Lillehaug: Well I'm ready to make a motion to table it right now, because I don't see a complete application. Sacchet: But then in all fairness, if that's the action we would go, we should have some discussion to give staff and the applicant some idea why we're tabling. So I do think there is good reason to go through the motions here. On the other hand I would say you may just want to hold off a little bit with getting into real details and multitudes of questions until we actually get to that level of granularity. Lillehaug: Sure. Well then one question of staff here. The existing tree canopy, if you look on sheet 2 versus sheet 4 and 6. I mean they're nowhere near close to each other. I mean and that's just, I think that's an important issue that the existing tree canopy line, would you concur that it's not the same when you go from sheet to sheet. And specifically you can see it if you look at Lots 4, 5 and 6. Am I looking at that correctly? If you compare sheet 2 with sheet 4, the existing tree line is nowhere near the same. And that's how it is throughout the site. Maybe I'm missing something. Generous: It looks like they're showing them after... Sacchet: After they, they're a trade-off right? On sheet whatever. Sheet 5 I guess that is. Lillehaug: Okay. Sacchet: Actually 5 of 6 I think is clearly after the development. It shows the reforestation and then sheet 2 shows the current situation. Is that accurate? Generous: That's what it looks like, yes. Lillehaug: Ahight. If you go to sheet 3 of 6, on the sanitary line. Do we have an appropriate easement for that sanitary line? East of the applicant's easterly property line. Saam: You mean west of the easterly property line? No. Lillehaug: East of the easterly property line, off the applicant's property. That storm sewer goes. Generous: In Arboretum Village. Lillehaug: It goes across a piece of property that's not his without an easement that's appearing. Saam: Yes, we do, as I remember Arboretum Village, we got easements pretty much 29 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 everywhere there weren't townhouse lots, and I don't know if Bob remembers, but all the open space I think was granted as an easement to the city. Generous: And the city also owns that land... Sacchet: Maybe we can ask that to the applicant. Maybe the applicant will remember too. Lillehaug: Alright. I'm going to stick to my important questions here. If you go to page 6 of the report. The Bluff Creek primary zone, 20 feet. I think it's supposed to be a 40 feet. I'm looking in the chart. It's supposed to be a 40 foot setback, correct? Generous: Correct. This is based on the variance. Lillehaug: Now is that, I've got to make sure I understand this correctly. Is that, it needs to be 40 feet from the primary line that is shown there? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: And we're nowhere near that. Generous: No. Sacchet: We're into the primary right now. Generous: Yeah, they're encroaching actually into the primary zone. Slagle: And your plan is to bring it to 20 feet. Generous: Make it a 20 foot setback. Lillehaug: Why? Why deviate in this case? I mean what is the outstanding circumstance that we'd, I mean the Bluff Creek Overlay District, it's supposed to be 40 feet. What is making this a different circumstance from the other adjacent properties to that whole district? Why is this different from anything else here? Generous: Well too is the location of West 78`a Street as it came into this project sort of dictated how this site lays out. There is a potential that they could shift the storm water pond to the north side of the property and shift the units closer to West 78'h Street. And then they may meet the setback because storm water ponds can be within that. Sacchet: Storm water could be in the setback? Generous: In the 40 foot setback, definitely. 30 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Okay. That's a water feature which is consistent with the Bluff Creek corridor and it'd be pre -treating it. There still would be the no cut zone but we would try to preserve the tree line again and that has been... Lillehaug: And that might work if you put the pond where the barn currently is, correct? Generous: Exactly, and that was one of the suggestions I had for them. Their alternative, so why don't they put it there and. I also wanted to see if they had a storm water pond there, they would have to discharge it down to the wetland. Eventually if they had to run a pipe down, then maybe they should put a trail connection down to the trail system over that pipe, since they're already going to the woods. But they came up with this alternative and have the storm water pond on the south side of the project. Lillehaug: So there's a trail, if I'm looking on sheet 2. It's way up in the north, that's the trail? Okay. You know what, I'm going to let other people talk. Thanks. Sacchet: Yeah, we can come back to you with this. We understand, this is not exhausting your questions. Slagle: I just have a couple of questions. Bob, touching upon the trail. Was there a reason given by the applicant, and I will ask them as well, but as to why there wasn't a connection down to the trail? Generous: Just that they didn't want to encroach into the treed area. The primary zone. At least to that extent. Slagle: So they don't want to encroach with a trail but they'll encroach with buildings. Generous: Yes. Slagle: Okay. Let me ask this question, and this might be one that just as a non -doable but was there ever consideration into extending whatever road that will be and having it come off Century Trail because I think you mentioned that either the city owns that land to the east or there's some. Generous: The city owns it, yes. Slagle: So, I mean have we considered instead of going onto West 78t' Street, if you went to Century, would you be able to build differently and fit 18? I'm just throwing this out. Saam: I guess it may have entered my mind at one point but was quickly put to rest. First off, the applicant doesn't own the land to the east. While the city has easements on it, it's not for roadway pur90ses. So now we'd be telling the applicant well yeah, you have an access off West 78 Street but go buy land. I mean that's why I quickly put that idea to rest. There is an existing access that was planned for. We just built West 78th 31 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Street and gave them the access there. It makes sense to use it. I will point out in one other previous submittals, they had two accesses off West 78`s Street. We pushed them away from that idea also and said just use the one access so. Sacchet: Thanks Matt. Slagle: So, and I'll ask it again. We might have an application in front of us that could result in 3 townhouses or units potentially being eliminated, which might make it a, not a viable project I'm just saying perhaps to the applicant. And I guess I'm asking again, if you had a street that went to Century, would you be able to get more lots on there or would it in your opinion be the net results the same? No matter where it jets out to. Sawn: I haven't looked at it in that context. One thing I will point out though Commissioner Slagle, another idea we had recommended to them regarding the ponding was that we have a, there's a pond down at the corner of Century and West 78`h Street. A rather larger one to the east. We said there's some potential there to expand the size of that to treat your water. Basically pick the pond off the site. Then you have more usable area. You know with the primary zone and everything. Slagle: And how was that received? Saam: They said they'd look into it and this is I guess what we got so maybe we can ask the applicant. That's another option. I kind of hear where you're going. You're looking at options. That's another option that they could do which would maybe alleviate the primary zone setback and those issues. Lillehaug: And that's, if I can butt in here. Slagle: You certainly may. Lillehaug: And that's a regional pond so that'd be kind of the overall goal of the city to try to get rid of the smaller ponds and put them into one bigger pond? Saam: Yeah. Yeah, I mean we do like that idea. However there's other jurisdictions that have claim to that. MnDot. They would need approval through them. Maybe MnDot shot them down, I don't know. So I'll just throw that out too because it is used by the Highway Department for part of Highway 5. It is also though used by Pulte so, and MnDot's already granted approval for Arboretum Village to drain there so. Tjomhom: I have a few things. When they came before us in August. They didn't come before us. When they met with us about what. Sacchet: Work session. Tjomhom: Yes. Did they have roughly 4 or 5 units in the overlay district? 32 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Generous: They had multiple plans. Tjornhom: I can't believe... Sacchet: I remember that. I think we, what they put in front of us as a concept was 18 units, not cutting into the tree line... because that's what I recall. Or at least that's what we asked for. There was one proposal where, I think that's the ultimately the recommendation we gave them. Lillehaug: This looks familiar. Generous: Yeah, this is the one that the applicant provided me. They were just for discussion purposes. They were looking at this concept. And as you can see, it backs into there. The direction was, you know townhouses may be okay but it looks like there's too many units on that and I don't know if you went any farther into looking at the primary zone boundaries. Sacchet: Certainly the guidance we gave them at the time was that we wanted to not cut into the northern tree line. I recall that very clearly. Tjornhom: Okay. Also, are these rental townhouses or are they just townhouses that will be sold? Generous: It's my understanding they're for sale. Tjornhom: Okay. And how does this fit into the metropolitan, or the Met Council's comprehensive plan for our city? Generous: It provides an alternate housing type. Tjornhom: Alright. Generous: So from that standpoint it's good. It's also at a density that's good for us under the low density. We'd like to push it up closer to the 4 units per acre and so at 3.18, it would be better. Tjornhom: And in the discussion of maybe changing things around in the development and putting the pond, or the stormwater pond into the zone, the creek area. Is that correct? Is that what I was hearing? Do they over spill? I mean I keep thinking you know, this is like a pretty important part of the bluff, and are they going to overflow? Could it happen where there's a rain and it fills up and then all the fertilizer from the yards and all the whatever runs into that bluff. Or no? Saam: I mean potentially I guess anything could happen if you get a serious flood but the ponds are sized for hundred year floods, which are fairly rare, so. Plus it will have an outlet pipe, so I guess we don't typically see them overflow. 33 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Slagle: You could talk to St. Michael though. Saam: Yeah, and Red River Valley. Those type of things can happen but. Sacchet: Just to clarify Bethany. Are you referring to the storm water pond or the Bluff Creek setback? Tjomhom: Maybe I wasn't hearing things correctly but I thought that the units could be shifted and that you could then have the storm water pond in that area. Is that what I heard? Sacchet: Yeah, okay. Generous: That was one of the alternatives. Feik: For just a moment bear with me. Assuming this moved forward tonight and passed, they ultimately have to come in for final plat, which we would not see. Generous: Correct. That goes to council. Feik: Thank you. Which could be very different from what we've got, if we have to eliminate 3 units, move roads, move structures. That's it, thanks. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Just one quick one. Relative to the Bluff Creek Overlay District, removal, replacement proposal of the applicant, which I understand you are opposed to. Has the city forester given you any guidance as to the suitability of the area proposed? The 4,700 square feet that's proposed for replacement as to how feasible it would be to revegetate that? Did you get any input on that or are you just rejecting that out of hand? Generous: She's supportive of the idea. She didn't directly comment on this proposal, but very similar to our overall Bluff Creek plan that talks about re-establishing vegetation in the corridor, especially on farm properties. Papke: Thank you Bob. Sacchet: Any questions Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. Has the applicant discussed the price point for these units at this point? Generous: I did discuss it earlier today. Their base price would be approximately $300,000 per unit. 34 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Okay. I guess most everything else has been touched on with the exception of some of these recommendations by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. Didn't see any comments with respect to staff's comments regarding it. It's on their letter to yourself. One of the last paragraphs where they're recommending a two cell basin in lieu of a single cell basin. Can you comment on that at all? Generous: Well I did ask Lori Haak, our Water Resource Coordinator. She said that she didn't believe it was necessary. This pond would drain eventually to that regional pond, and so you get the same benefit. Claybaugh: Okay. And then direct this question to Matt. If in fact the NURP pond was moved out to the north end in lieu of the south location that it's at currently, and those units were shifted back, do you have any concerns about the radius of that tum? If that road had to be reconfigured. Saam: I guess I'll say without seeing a proposal I don't have any concerns. I'm assuming they would submit something that abides by code. Sacchet: Is that it? Claybaugh: I think that's all my questions. Sacchet: Yeah, I've got 3 quick questions. First, the primary and secondary boundaries. On the subject property's east boundary, that seemed to kind of make a jig. All of a sudden it's, and I know what it is. Is it 20 feet or 30 feet, they all of a sudden are further down. Why do we have this C type of phenomena happening there with those boundaries? That seems a little awkward. It kind of takes away from the credibility of those boundaries. Generous: I believe they're relying on our base, the city map. The GIS map which started out at that point. We would suggest that the primary zone boundary is a tree edge on the property to the east also, so then that line would be contiguous. Sacchet: And then in addition, if we look, there is actually a couple of the units are drawn on the Arboretum Village. That are immediately adjacent. They seem to certainly come all the way to, and also under the secondary, do they touch on the primary or is that just the lot size? Do you see what I'm referring to? Generous: Oh yes, and I think it's because they picked up the line off the map as opposed to the actual physical conditions. Sacchet: Just to be really clear, those squares are the lot sizes of those units. The units are sitting to the road side? They don't, I mean where would the unit be sitting on those? Generous: It would be within the lot line there but they don't have the specific building pad. 35 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Sacchet: So potentially the building could be touching into the secondary but definitely not into the primary? Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay. That's my first question. My second question, there is this rather significant retaining wall proposed to the east of this development. It actually says 9 foot height, which seems very high, so I'm a little bit perplexed because the territory there seems relatively flat. I mean not totally flat but being from Switzerland this is definitely flat. And all of a sudden we have a 9 foot retaining wall. And I look at this and I kind of wonder, are they planning to make these walkout, lookout units and just fill the dirt in between so that it's a level up and then put a retaining wall at the end. It seems a little crude. But it kind of looks like that. Do you have any enlightening wisdom on that please? Generous: I'd defer to our engineer. Sacchet: Or our engineering, alright. Matt. Saam: You basically got it right Chairman Sacchet. They're raising the grade on that east side there significantly to get the walkouts on both sides of the street. Sacchet: And where's that dirt coming from? Saam: I'm assuming, I haven't checked this with the applicant, but I'm assuming they're pulling some dirt, probably not for the road bed but from the pond area. They're going to be excavating out there. Maybe that will be used for berming or around the retaining wall. But they may indeed be trucking some in. That hasn't been determined yet. Sacchet: And then we have this road stubbing literally feet away from, few feet away from that retaining wall. Is that acceptable? Saam: We'll require barricades to be put up there but. It's not the best situation, no. Sacchet: It'd make an excellent ski jump if you put a ramp up there. Anyhow it's, I'm getting carried away. My third question, condition number 4 of the preliminary plat says the final plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to West 78°i Street. What are we talking about in that case? Generous: As part of the Arboretum Village development, they did have an Outlot J that they preserved there, or that was here as part of their property. And then Outlot G was the property that was dedicated to the city. These are excess properties. The developer couldn't use them and so he's willing to sell Outlot J to the developer and the city really doesn't need this portion so we're working on an agreement. 36 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Okay, that answers it. Thank you very much Bob. That's the questions. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and see what you can add to all this wonderful story. Please state your name and address for the record. Todd Simning: Todd Simning, Greenwood, Minnesota. Plowshares Development. Are your eyes glossed over yet? I think mine are. Sacchet: Not totally. Todd Simning: Not totally? I guess I'll start with the couple easy items first. Just in reference to the trail system. Whether it would actually go down into the trees or not. The biggest reason it was decided not to put a trail system through there was strictly on the advice of when we were working with staff. 41 is actually going to be improved at some point and there's most likely going to be a trail connection along side 41 going down to the existing trail to the north, so at the time we just left it out of there. Secondly in reference to the street coming off Century Boulevard. We actually looked at it at one point in time, but what ended up happening was, it was too close to the corner of the radius of West 78`s Street and Century Trail, and so it was kind of eliminated as a possibility to actually put that road through there, so we actually did look at that at one time. Also in reference to the pond, and this will go into a bigger story as it unfolds, but in reference to the pond being, taking our water off site, we did check with MnDot and they shot us down completely. They were already taking Pulte's water on and they really wanted to preserve that for themselves and were not interested in working with us to allow our water to go there so that was one of the other reasons why we ended up with a pond on our side over here. Just as a clarification, and I guess it might be something that we need to discuss with yourselves as well as staff. We were under the assumption that the variance would be 25 feet and not 20 feet, and that we couldn't grade within the last 15 feet of it, versus the last 10 feet of it. So we were gaining 5 feet on a variance addition but we had to stay further away from the primary because you guys had 10 feet and we thought we had to be 15 feet from the primary zone. So that was just more of a clarification for our conversations with staff and maybe Bob can shed some light on that. Okay, so let me start from the beginning of coming out here in August or September with you guys. You know we had went through many different designs of this overall plan and I had actually brought one to you guys that showed 24, well I had 32 lots. I had 28 lots and I had 24 lots. And you guys laughed at me and said don't bring the 32. Don't bring the 28 and so we put the 24 out, and one of the ideas that you guys had was mainly that you know what, we'll support townhouses there but 24 probably looks like it's too many. At the time that was disappointing but yet on the same token we went back to staff to try to work through getting your ideas and trying to work through a good plan with them. In the midst of trying to figure out all this, and what we wanted to accomplish and we met with Bob on many different occasions. Before we went through this plan that you guys see right now, we had actually came up with an idea via Bob, and it had to do with the ponding on the north side. And we actually eliminated that on our own accord as a viable option and I'm going to pass around a detail here that will kind of help explain why we ended up deleting that as one of our options. The plan that you guys have in front of us still has 18 units on it, but it does show that the pond can fit and is allowable 37 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 on the north side over there. Bob and ourselves had actually talked about possibly putting it towards the east side, and what ended up happening was that we ended up putting it on the west side as an option when we looked at it for a couple different reasons. It made more sense just strictly because, from an engineering point of view, the overflow of the storm water would actually go down the ditch over here instead of if it was on the east side here, the overflow would actually go down over the, through the woods and then down over the trail and eventually make it into the wetlands. We didn't think that was a great option just strictly because you know I know it's engineered to 100 year flood event, but you just never know anymore. So we wanted to go ahead and put it on the west side over here because then it would actually go right down the ditch line on 41 and not really end up going over the tree line and into the wetlands down there over the trail. In doing this type of concept, whether we were on the west side here as a pond or on the east side, if we were able, or if we were actually going to do that, which we definitely could do and we could present to you guys, we would lose an additional, roughly 20 to 25 trees no matter where we ended up putting the pond there. To us it made sense to try to put the pond up here towards the south side, and go ahead and try to save as much tree canopy as we possibly could. Our price point of our units are going to be in the $300,000 to $400,000 range. This is a very unique site but it really offers us a lot of natural amenities that we, as well as yourselves want to try to protect. And so using that and wanting to keep the tree line and knowing that those would be our most valuable units back there, we eliminated it as a possibility of going in here and showing the pond. Tearing out another 20 trees and you know having to sell that and open it up and you'd see 41 a little bit more, and we didn't really want to have that happen. The other thing that it allows us to do if we don't put the pond down there in the north side, and we leave it up here towards the south side, yes. I am asking that we be able to encroach on the tree line just slightly. We will go ahead and revegetate with nice vegetation, trees, that sort of thing. But it will also allow us the opportunity to get a little nicer buffer along West 78th Street, instead of having the units being at the minimum 50 foot setback far up and close to West 78th Street, we can at least have some sort of happy medium in there to say okay, if we had to have the best of everything, obviously we wouldn't be encroaching the trees and we'd be as far away from West 78th Street as possible, but in order to make everything work out, if in fact we can put the pond here to the south, move it just slightly into the trees, it made more sense to us. And so that's why we came here today. I know you guys have a lot of questions, or had a lot of questions on it but that's why we came today with the outline that we had. There's been a lot of conversations with staff and ourselves. I don't know. We just wanted to really save more of the tree line as possible. If in fact you guys wanted to see that the pond is on the north side, we can definitely do that. We're not opposed to it. We're willing to work with staff on that and work with the Planning Commission on that but that's the reasoning why we came with what we had today. Couple other small notes I guess. Let's see. On page 20 of 20, which is number 8 and there's a lot of conditions which is a little bit confusing to ourselves too. But it specifically states in there that sprinkler systems on homes, it has to be for all the units. All of our units actually don't meet the 8,500 square foot minimum. Our two unit buildings don't, and I just wanted to make a clarification on that also for staff maybe to note that we understand that our 3 unit buildings are over 8,500 gross square feet so they would have to be sprinkled. But the 2 unit buildings actually don't, gosh what do you 19 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 call it? Don't require it. However, having said that, if we do choose to sprinkle all of our units, we'd also want it noted that we actually are not required to have a hammerhead in the street system then. So that little turn around, which is right here, this little thing right here for fire trucks to get in and what not, we could possibly eliminate that if in fact we did sprinkle all our units, so I just wanted to clarify that on that item. In our opinion, I hope you guys feel the same way but in our opinion we feel that the proposed layout is actually a much better proposal than what we possibly could have come with and been within the rules and the guidelines of the city ordinances and city codes. We're very excited about the overall project. I hope you guys are too. We're looking forward to building a unique development in Chanhassen. We created one, Marsh Glen right over off of 101 and West 86a' Street, which again was a very sensitive area, just strictly because of the wetlands areas behind. We worked hard with the city staff to create an easement along there and save as many trees as possible. We finished all our houses are done. Homeowners are in there and it really turned out great so if I can encourage you guys just to go through there and see what we are as a developer and a builder, that might give you a better feeling of what we feel is a good neighborhood and how we like to save trees and save the natural environment around us. And I'm open to any questions you guys might have. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant. You're nodding Rich. Slagle: I can start if you want. Just a few. Can you tell me, excuse me, what would be your target audience? Who do you see living here, assuming this goes through. Todd Simning: I see this as a development very similar to our Settlement Ridge, the Pines development over in Eden Prairie. We had two phases over there. We did 34 lots. 32 or, 33 lots on one side of the street and 28 lots on the other side. But it would shock you. It shocked us on what our audience was. We had anything from 27-28 year old first time homebuyers, through the 30's, the 40's, the 50's and we had some 70 and 80 year old people. We hit all target ranges of ages in there and it just, it really surprised us. We had a lot of single women that actually bought in our developments. I would say probably about 25 percent of our client was single women and they were looking for a smaller development that they could feel safe in, and that's one of the reasons why we, I think we attracted that type of buyer from what they had told us. Slagle: Were there families with kids? Todd Simning: Very few. I think in our fust phase out of 33 we had 1, which was the Deans and then on the second side we have 2 out of 28 that actually had any children. Slagle: The reason I'm asking, specifically with the children's issue is, this development is, correct me if I'm wrong staff but a fair distance to any park that we have in the city. In fact the two closest parks would be Lundgren's private parks. So if there are children, and if you remember when we met a few months ago my question was in your center area showing a cul-de-sac or a circle. One of my recommendations would be that you put some type of playground in there. Obviously you haven't followed that and that's okay, 39 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 but I then follow along with the questions earlier about the trails because I do believe you're correct that 41 at some point will result in a trail. I know it's going to connect to the north, to the Longacres area. I don't know what the plan is to go south to West 78th from the trail. Will it continue down to West 78"'9 Generous: To 82nd Street eventually. Slagle: Okay. My question then, if I can ask is, that being the case, would you be open then as far as your sidewalks go, to extending out to 41 as you come out of your development? If I'm not mistaken the sidewalk is on the south side of West 78th. Todd Simning: It's on the, our sidewalk actually, and I don't think Bob's got this highlighted completely right here. He's got it initially marked here but we also have a sidewalk that does come down to 41, and that's actually on the plan. It's just not highlighted right now. Slagle: Okay. Obviously you've heard sensitivities about the primary line. Can this project proceed if 2 or 3 of your units were eliminated? Todd Simning: Fair question and I know that, I do know that it would be difficult but I guess I couldn't answer. I do know without 3 we're not doing it for sure. Anything less than what we have, it would be, it would be, we can't be over $400,000 on our units. We know what sells. Our units sell between 325 and 390,000 dollars and it doesn't make it a viable project for us to sell these things over $400,000 because we know that that buyer's not there. We've proven it on our other sites. It just doesn't make any sense for us to do anything. Slagle: Okay. And then the last question I have is, it was mentioned earlier regarding the number of conditions that were in the, at least one of the items we were looking at, and again I think echoing what's been shared, that's a lot so my question, and Mr. Chair I hope I'm not being premature by asking this but would you be opposed to, if there was a motion to table this until some of those things get resolved. Todd Simning: Yes, we would be open to that. On there it seemed, at least I thought that a lot of those conditions on there were redundant to what is normal operating procedures on a development, so I actually thought it was kind of strange for maybe a different reason than you guys have because we just assumed that those things are happening, and typically on our conditions we see things that are out of the ordinary that aren't typical so. Slagle: Fair enough. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Questions from the applicant. Feik: You said the price point is roughly 300-3 �i. What's the square footage of the units Finished square footage. 40 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Todd Simning: 2,700 square feet, up and down. Finished both levels. 1,500 on the main floor, 1,200 on the lower, yep. Feik: And as long as you're standing here, I have a question for the city engineer as it relates to the parcel to the east that you said that we have some sort of an easement over. And this may be a hair brained idea, but within that easement could you put a pond? Could you move the pond east off the lot? It could be an amenity for the neighbors to the east. Would that generally fit within that? Saam: I guess potentially it could be done. Keep in mind again they don't, this applicant doesn't own the property. The City doesn't own it. We have certain rights over it, so whoever owns it, I'm assuming an association owns that. They'd have to negotiate with them in order to be able to do that, but I guess yeah, it could be done. Feik: Just looking at an alternative. Any gut reaction to, knee jerk reaction to that? Todd Simning: I think it would be difficult myself just, and I think Matt's nodding his head up and down too. We thought that this parcel right here we could work with the city and buy it. This over here ended up being more of a kind of given to the city I think more on an open space arena and I think it would be difficult just strictly because you end up having units right next door to it and if it's not your pond, who's going to want a pond sitting there. Feik: Alright, just curious. Those were my only two questions, thank you. Papke: Continuing on the pond vein here, and let's maybe just try to finish off the last alternative. Putting it where the barn is, I understand, if I understood you correctly, you were concerned about some of the trees that would have to be taken out to put the pond to the north central part of the property where the barn currently is. Is that correct? Todd Simning: Well 20 to 25 trees would be taken out, whether we went to basically where the pond is, or over by the west side. And our concern was mainly with the pond, what I'll call the east side, was just strictly from overflow, any water that does make it down past into the trees and then it goes over the trail and continues onward. That was the main concern there. It was easier to get water out of the pond if it went on the west side. Papke: Right, correct. But if we overlook that at the moment and just look at the practability of putting it where the barn is. If one looks at the trees there, they're elms. They're box elders. They're not the more significant trees on the property. If you know we looked at taking some of those out and locating the pond in the central area there, would that, is that feasible from your perspective as a developer and the grading. Are there any other barriers to locating the pond there... 41 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Todd Simning: If I may, I just need to converse with Ed Hasek with Westwood Engineering here. Papke: Sure. While they're conferring. I walked the property last weekend a little bit. I didn't actually go on the property but observed it from a distance and if you look at that barn area, it's not, there's big brush piles and so on. I mean it's not, it's the kind of area that if you could use that square footage for a pond, it might not be a bad alternative. Ed Hasek: I believe that you have a copy of this. I'm hoping you did. A color copy of this that was submitted to the city. Are we on the screen? Right, excellent... vegetation in this area. The city doesn't differentiate between box elder. Significant tree is simply is a tree that... Papke: And I disagree with the city on that regard. Ed Hasek: ...but we have the ordinances to deal with I guess. My name is Ed Hasek. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. I'm a registered landscape architect and a planner in the State of Minnesota. I would agree. The vegetation in this area is less quality than perhaps other areas of the site. There's no question about it. That continues all the way across the back of the Pulte parcel as well. Our concern again, simply from the design standpoint was what was going to happen with the water if it overflowed the pond. And if there's a way to work with the city to pipe that underneath and get it into the creek underneath the trail so the trail doesn't wash out, that's an option that we can certainly look at. Personally I think that if we were going to put the pond on the north side, this is probably where it wants to go if it wants to go anywhere. I guess from a design standpoint and from simply the overflow and what makes the most sense from an engineering standpoint, it seemed to us that it should be adjacent to the road so we can use existing infrastructure, ditches. Papke: Just to complete that thought, from the city engineering perspective, if the concern is overflow of the pond, and we're designed for a 100 year storm event, is this something we should be worried about or is this something that we can safely say you know, the likelihood of the pond overflowing is not that great. And if it does overflow, okay. So the trees get a little, the tree roots get wet for a day or two, because there's a pretty substantial slope there. The water's not going to hang there. It's going to flow right down to the marsh. Saam: Exactly. I guess from that perspective if it's sized for the 100 year, I mean we don't look at it outside of that. So if it's sized for the 100 year, we're fine with that. Papke: Okay. No other questions, thank you. Slagle: If I can just add to that. Matt, would not if it was on the northwest comer of the property, and the thought being that it would overflow into the ditch. The ditch is going to run down into the swamp anyway. 42 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Just takes a different path. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah, I just had a question. On page 4 of 20, the last paragraph under Section 20-501. Intent. Staff states in exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development of plans will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than what would be the case with other more standard zoning districts. Could you respond or explain what you think you bring to the stew in that context? Todd Simning: You want me to stir it up a little bit? Claybaugh: Sure. Todd Simning: I actually think that we do bring a higher quality product to the market place. I think that's exemplified in a couple different ways. Number one, if in fact you go to our developments that we've built, our townhouse developments, the Pines primarily over at Settlers Ridge. When you go through there, we're not the normal builder. Or developer. I mean you see a lot of undulation in land, in landscaping. You'll see significant amounts of large trees that we brought in. You'll see a significant amount of actual landscaping that we've done, which contrast that to say Arboretum Village next door. It's a pretty standard stark looking development. They serve a purpose because they're at a certain price range, and I'm not knocking that but if you contrast that with what we have done in our developments, you'll see a drastic difference in the quality there of just strictly the land itself. Number 2, just with our units themselves, if you do go and take a look at what we've accomplished with our's versus some of the other guys. Lundgren Brothers, that would be in our same price category, that sort of thing. You'll see a definite difference there and I think that's why we've, when we've competed with them in the same developments, which we have in several different occasions, we've outsold them very well just strictly because our units are more attractive than what they had to offer. And then lastly, customer service wise, if you talk to our clients that we, that are living in our developments right now, as well as who we're building with right now, there's a definite difference between ourselves and some of the other guys on the street. We really take care of our clients and that's important to us. Claybaugh: I'm going to try and fine tune that question a little bit. I'm assuming most of those things that you covered are reflected in your price point. I'm speaking more specifically to the context that we have 5 motions in front of us, okay. Regarding to this conditional use permits, land use amendments, what is the benefits specifically to the city? What is the trade off for Chanhassen? Todd Simning: You guys get a nicer product within your city. You feel good about a nice development. You get tax base. That's always important. So if you're looking at, I would think that those would be the two primary items. Besides that, it's going to fill somewhat of a void that there's not a lot of townhouses within the kind of move up 43 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 market where there's quite a few people that live and work around the area that again from single women to retirees to young people that are looking for a higher quality neighborhood to live in, and you guys would attract that as far as Chanhassen goes. You're definitely up and coming as Eden Prairie's filling up and you know it continues to come out and you just see more and more people that are starting to come out here. Claybaugh: That's all I have. Lillehaug: A couple questions for you. This is a real easy one. Why are you cheating yourself out of 5 feet with having a 31 foot road instead of 26 foot road? Todd Simning: You know we have a couple developments right now that we did. Our first Pines project in Eden Prairie, I think we had, god it was pretty narrow. I think it was like 21. 22 foot, and when we did that one there were two, I always try to get better, okay. There were two problems with that. Number one, we had a 22 foot wide street, which was allowable, but we also had smaller driveways. Our second side of the Pines we went to a 24, or 26. It's 24 or 26 and we went to 20 or 22 foot driveways. Construction wise, it makes it a little tough because there's not a lot of places to park. Besides that, as people live there and they're having company, it's really nice to, even though we have nice sized driveways here, there's, it's nice to have some place for your company to park. In this development, I think we're just getting that much better again where we're saying okay, let's give ourselves a 31 foot street. Let's give ourselves some places to park. We have 25 foot driveways on average, and it just provides a nicer element for the people that ultimately live there over time, and that was important to us. We just listened to our customers and that's what they've told us they look for in developments and so that's what we wanted to accomplish. Lillehaug: How about with your wall? I measured, based off the contours, the existing and proposed. It needs to be maybe a 10 to 12 foot wall. Do you have any concerns with that? Even if it's a 9 foot wall. How would you address, you know a rail or a fence on top of it. Do you have any concerns with that? Todd Simning: At the height of it, it is 9 foot and then it tapers down on both sides fairly quickly. We think we can do a nice landscaped barricade type deal to prevent any issues or problems there. We actually have one at the Pines right now, which is in Eden Prairie that is actually larger than this. We do them out of boulder walls. We have our boulder walls engineered so they're not just a flat, ugly looking wall. I mean there's some undulation to it. It's nice looking. It actually incorporates the overall landscaping with the trees. Is more of a natural setting than something that's just so commercial and it goes straight up and down so we've had really good luck with it and haven't had any issues. Lillehaug: Okay. My last comment, or question would be your access off of West 78th Street. If you're traveling east on West 78`", you know you have your, you do have your access right at the end of the median. It's not ideal. Looking at having, providing an access off of Century Trail, if that indeed is a city outlot there. Is one of the other EV -11 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 concerns that you can't get the elevations to tie in with Century Trail? I mean are we totally abandoning the idea of coming off of Century Trail? Todd Simning: We strictly had just because of what we had found out from the city earlier, that when we had to be so far from the corner here and we really didn't have anything to work with when you're considering that you had to be so far up and then all of a sudden you're right next to somebody else's units over here again. It's kind of like the pond. We really felt as though we would probably get enough outcry from neighbors so to speak that we were trying to force something on them, and really we wanted to deal with our own property and that was a better way of going about it. Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks. Sacchet: One more quick question. To what extent, obviously this is not a new notion that staff is recommending we preserve that northern tree line, and I do believe we also touched on it in our preliminary meeting when we were here, what 3-4 months ago. How doable, or how much effort have you put into looking how this could be accommodated without having to cut into that northern tree line? Todd Simning: Right now because of the setbacks from West 78m Street with our pond, on the south side right there, we can't make that work. Can't do it. Sacchet: So you feel you exhaustively researched that? Todd Simning: The only thing that we could do to get just a little bit further out of it is, is to potentially go down to a 26 foot street, which would bring in another 5 feet out and again hopefully I addressed that. I mean ultimately it's up to you guys whether you want to say that I have good reason or not to do that. Sacchet: But the pond needs to have that size? It couldn't be a little lopsided to bring that side down to... Todd Simning: According to our engineers, that's the size that it needs to have, or be there to accommodate what we have. Sacchet: So you feel you pretty exhaustively looked at that Todd Simning: For the layout that we have here, I think that we have exhausted what we could possibly do. The only thing that could happen is if you guys said that no, we really want that pond on the north side. Then basically I would say hey table me, and give me that direction and we'll go back and we'll redesign the plan to show that. We just didn't feel as though that was a great alternative. Sacchet: Well yeah, well we can touch on that in comments a little more. Thank you. 45 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Lillehaug: One other quick question if I could. Staff addressed your sanitary line, trying to keep that out of the normal water level. Paralleling the pond on the south there. Do you feel that where it's at, it's out of the normal water, or it's above that water line? And my concern is, we try to push that north, we're getting too close to the houses and structures with that line. Todd Simning: You just went right over my head. Ed do you? Ed Hasek: Could you ask the question again? Lillehaug: Staff, in their report indicated that they would like to verify or to ensure that the sanitary line that parallels the pond, north of the pond, south of the houses, that it's, I'm not paraphrasing here but I think it's ideal to have it out from underneath the normal water level of the pond. My question is, is it right now? Ed Hasek: I believe it currently is right on the edge and it can be moved and we understand, that's a very good comment by staff but that can be accommodated. I'd like to address just, there were some comments about, earlier about the elevation of the road and some of the things that were going on and I'd like to go through that really quickly with you. Really what's happening with this site is the pond elevation and the need to store water in that pond, the outlet elevation that we have on that is setting the elevation of all of the structures on this site. We have 4, 5, or 6 steps in the garage going into the units. We kept the garages as low as possible. Pushed the units up as far as possible to make this whole thing work, so the elevation is really being set by the water elevation in the pond that's on the north side of the property right now. Just so you understand why things are as high as they are. One other reason why there was some comment about the elevation of the wall. Personally when I put this thing together and designed it to start with, I had the end of the road higher than the wall and the engineering staff at Westwood said no, we're not going to do that. We've had problems with that in the past. The wall has to be higher than the end of the road because we don't want any water running to the back of the wall, especially if it's going to be a boulder wall. So that kind of sets the elevation. The pond sets the elevation of the units. The units set the elevation of the road. The road sets the elevation of the wall. It's kind of how it goes so. Sacchet. While we're at it. You would have to import dirt to build it up that high wouldn't you? Ed Hasek: I haven't gone through a complete analysis. I believe that our first go around we thought we were about 10,000 square yards short. That's not a lot of dirt for a site like this. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair I had a question. Sacchet: Go ahead. M Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: You commented on the touch down points for the existing plan that you have before us. Could you comment on how it would affect the elevations of those touch down points if the retention pond was put on the north side? Ed Hasek: I think we could lower the site slightly. Not substantially but slightly. It may go down 2 or 3 feet. The road elevation. Claybaugh: That's substantial. Ed Hasek: Yes. On this site it could potentially be substantial. The other thing that it might offer us is the opportunity to reduce the number of stairs in a garage. Claybaugh: Right. Ed Hasek: But that would mean we'd have to keep the road up in order to do that. The garage floor has to go up. Therefore the road has to stay up because we can't. Claybaugh: What kind of elevation do you have on your garage floor over your road elevation? Ed Hasek: I don't know off hand. I think it must be a foot and a half roughly. It's not even that I don't think. Claybaugh: That's the extent of my comments. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, thank you very much. Todd Simning: Thank you. Sacchet: This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to comment on this item, this is your chance to come forward and tell us what you want to say to us. Please state your name and address for the record please. Mike Ryan: Yes, hi. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mike Ryan, 2595 Southern Court and seeing this proposal, it does seem like these guys are going to great efforts in many ways so it looks like a fine project. However, for many of you who know me, I was very involved with the Pulte project and I had a lot of concerns about that and using some of the terms tonight here, that there is I think a need for some consistency with respect to the comp plan and where we work closely with the Pulte project and that, everything north of 78`s Street was on the comp plan, or is on the comp plan, is designed for low density. And in this case I understand that they're requesting that to be medium density. And the council at that time did recognize that everything north should be in that low density requirement. This project is, it is known as, or being defined as the Highlands which is, I believe that's part of the head waters if you will of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and I do have issue as a resident of Chanhassen about that variance requesting, going from 40 to 20, and really would like the city and the council here to 47 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 take a good strong look at that. But most importantly is the old growth tree forest there_ I think with the Pulte project, as well as with the Lundgren project there was a lot of effort to try to maintain that old growth forest and, I'm not trying to sound as somebody who's into trees and so forth, but I think that, and certainly in Chanhassen there is very few forests and I hate to see, and I think this is where one of the units, if I may. Down here in 9, 10 and 11, and I realize that's not in the primary corridor but it's, I know it's a very healthy tree structure and I don't know if there's anything that the council here can take a look at with respect to that. So I guess in summary I just wanted to make those comments and I don't know if there is any clarity as to exactly or to communicate this but how much of a percent of the trees be it in the primary and the secondary as well as even beyond that corridor, is going to be lost. So I don't know if staff knows that or if anybody could speak to that. Sacchet: You want to quickly touch on that Bob? Since it is part of the development. Generous: Well I'd like to start with the consistency with the comp plan first. This development is considered low density. The only reason the land use amendment is in place is because our PUD ordinance doesn't permit the clustering of housing, so it's actually less dense than Pulte's project north of West 78`s Street. That came in at 3.5 units per acre. This is 3.18 so it's less dense than that. ...setback, that's a question. Old growth forest. Jill did a calculation and I worked on this earlier today. Let's see if I can remember. They're removing approximately, what is it? 27 percent. 33 percent of the existing canopy coverage on this site as part of the overall project. The percent that's in the primary zone, we'd like to get it to zero. Right now they have about 4,000 square feet of area. The total tree removal is just under an acre. It's .9 acres so they're doing a lot. One of their previous plans actually preserved this old growth trees but in exchange they were cutting into the trees up there so it is a balance on the site. Which area do we want to preserve more? I must commend them for their plan. They have preserved some of those trees along Highway 41 corridor and in the future if they can work it out as part of the final construction plans, they would save additional trees because it only adds value to their project and it's less trees that they potentially have to plant on this site. Mike Ryan: Okay, so what is the percentage of complete loss of trees? Sacchet: Well according to the staff report the baseline currently has 42 percent cover and the proposed tree preservation would go down to 28 percent. Mike Ryan: So is that 50 percent of the 42? Sacchet: It's gone from 2.75 acres down to 1.84 acres. And the applicant actually made, I've never seen an applicant that made such a diligent effort with actually inventorying. They also did it in terms of the total number of trees. The significant ones that we inventoried go from 106, if I read that correctly, and 27 would be lost by that calculation, or it'd be 25 percent of them in terms of numbers. In terms of the size of the trees, it's a little more dramatic. It goes down from roughly 2,000 inches and close to 800 are En Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 removed, so it's probably in the 40 percent range in terms of the size of the trees. And I'll have some comments about that later on. Mike Ryan: And I'm not trying to, like Pulte where we're not objecting to the Pulte project but what we're just looking for again is consistency and this does, I do mean this. It does seem like a reasonable project. One thing, and this is probably more editorial, is that it, I learned a lot with the Pulte project but it always amazes me how these developers come in here and all of a sudden it's, how it ends up being everybody else's problem versus their's and as one being in business, usually you know the lay of the land. You know what you're working with and you know your price points and so forth, but you guys certainly see this much more than I do in this process but at any rate. Not trying to throw a wrench in it. It's just—it could be any extent or great efforts to try to keep the old growth, I think everybody would be appreciative of that. Sacchet: Thanks. Appreciate your comments. Anybody else wants to comment about this? Susan McAllister: I'm Susan McAllister. I'm one of the parties that's involved with this. It's my property. The old growth trees are very much on their way to their death bed because it's a high parcel and they basically, not all of them but most of them have been hit by lightning and so I just wanted to make that clear. I do have some photographs of some of them. And my number two point is that I used to walk in the Longacres forest a long time ago, before they developed it so yeah, there has been a lot of trees taken out of that site too. I guess I would, I don't know where you're going to go with it tonight but I'd like to see it a little clearer and I wouldn't oppose you know to table it if you thought it wasn't clear enough right now so that's all I have to say. Sacchet: Thank you Susan. Anybody else want to comment on this while we have a public hearing? This is your chance. Nope? Alright. I'll close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to commissioners. Comments, discussion. We sprinkled in some things that bordered on comments already. How about we start on this side. We started mostly on this side so far. Claybaugh: Yeah, with respect to comments, I would like to see the NURP pond moved to the north side in the existing barn location. I think in the final analysis, whether there's an overflow in there or not, which is highly unlikely, it's still going to end up in Bluff Creek. It's just going to take a different path to get there. With that, and I'd like to see the properties moved out of the primary zone and I think that would enable them to adjust that elevation. Get the retaining wall down. Eliminate some of those steps that they've identified from the garage to the main structure. I think there's a number of positive benefits by doing that so to summarize I'd like to table tonight and that would be the direction that I would provide them with. Sacchet: Just to clarify what you're envisioning Craig. Is the pond where the barn is, meaning still keeping that tree line intact around there to the north? 49 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Still keeping that tree line intact as much as possible, but I think that those were of lesser quality trees in that area. It doesn't mean that to be, it wouldn't be some impact obviously but the lesser of two evils. Sacchet: Thanks. Papke: Yeah, just to expound on that. I agree 100 percent. I think if we, if you look at the trade off's here, and again I understand you want to obey the letter of the law here and do canopy coverage and everything. But also touching on some of the resident comments on the old growth woods. The current proposal to do the, to chop out the, or remove the current overlay district involves removing some 25 inch diameter maples, which you know would break my heart. On the other hand, putting the pond where the barn is might involve removing some box elders and some elm trees, which as the property owner states, are probably not long lived anyway. So for myself, I would be very amenable to arguments from the applicant to removing some of the elm trees and box elder trees which are low quality in the barn area there, and trying to find some way of moving the pond in there and keeping the primary district line where it is. I think that could be a win/win scenario. Granted the applicant also voiced some concern that having the NURP pond along West 78th Street allows you to set those homes back away from 78th Street. I think in this particular situation, if you really want to stay at your currently building count, that might be the only viable solution to move the pond towards the back. Move the homes a little bit closer to the street and having that be the trade off. So that's all I have, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Feik: I agree with what's been said thus far. I would agree with tabling it for an additional reason in that I think given the number of conditions that we've got here, if we were to move this forward, I don't think it would look much like what we're looking at today. To try to conform with all those conditions so I would not be comfortable with moving forward with this based upon the scope of the conditions. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Bethany. Tjornhom: Not to be redundant I agree with everything that's been said so far. But I do want to say that I think it's a nice development so I hope it works out. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Rich. Slagle: A couple things. It is a great development. I'll even go as far to say great. I will throw out a thought and again fellow commissioners know I have an interest in trails and sidewalks. I will re-emphasize again to the applicant and to staff, I do think there's some merit to having a path go through the woods to connect to the trail. I think that would be a selling point to a perspective owners, but I think more importantly is, as we will see later, justification for either having sidewalks or not having sidewalks in different communities. We have a site that's going to be presented to us. One of the rationale if I LYC Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 remember right is connecting to trails. And if this was a neighborhood of single family homes, I would tend to think that the park and rec group as well as staff might be more open if you will to connecting to that trail. So I only throw that out. I would be pleased to see that. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: Couple comments. I'm not opposed to a 26 foot wide street. I'm not going to reiterate things here. I'm just going to add to it. I'm not opposed to a 26 foot wide street so that is a point I think we should look at. The walk that parallels 78`6 Street that is proposed. I think it's proposed as a 6 foot. I'd like staff to work with the applicant. Are we okay with a 6 foot walk or do we want to match the 8 or 10 foot trail that is on the south side of the road? I'm not opposed to either way. I just want to make sure that we get what we want there. One other thing here, and I want to discuss this with fellow commissioners. Looking at their alternative plan that was handed to us, where it pushed the houses to the south, it still looks like we, you know if we look at that plan they have 20 feet from the primary zone. City still requires 40 feet, correct? Generous: That's what the ordinance says. Lillehaug: Yeah. So we're still looking at a variance here and I want to make sure everyone's aware of that. I guess. Slagle: If I can, would that variance fall in line with what staff is suggesting? I think it does. Lillehaug: It does. And then my question, I want to throw it out there is, I mean I liked it but why are we deviating from 40 feet and allowing 20 feet, and I don't, does someone have that answer for me? Because I don't. Sacchet: Well part of it, the way I understand it's a trade off. I mean we're preserving the northern, what is it? Third or what of the property in it's natural state. And as a tool to get to that end we have the PUD and yes, we have to put it into the medium density context because in the low density we can't do this clustering thing. So by doing the clustering, concentrating the density by taking it out totally out of that primary zone. I mean that's the benefit we're getting. Lillehaug: So can a development come in there, a single family and go into that primary zone and put a house? I'm just saying, why aren't we hold to 40 feet here? What is the trade off because I guess I'm, I want to understand and see it because I'm not seeing what the trade off is here. What development could come in there and go into that primary zone? Is there one? Generous: It hasn't been tested yet. 51 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Sacchet: We were fortunate in that we work consistently with people that were willing to work that trade off. So the question is then where do we make the delineation? How far do we go with what we're trading off? It's a give and take. I mean it's every case. Generous: Mr. Chairman, Lillehaug. Commissioner Lillehaug. The other thing is if you use that starting point of the 18 units, the twin home project, they potentially could have gone with 5-6 unit structures and been able to meet the setbacks. But then we wouldn't have had the consistency of development with the Pulte project that we directed them to try to accomplish using the 2 and 3 unit structures. So that would be another trade off or reason that we're looking at making this work. Lillehaug: I'm not totally sold on it but I'm just throwing it out there. I mean it's a great development. I'm just trying to justify reducing it from 40 feet to 20 feet, which is 50 percent. Claybaugh: Is it a given that we have to settle for the 20 feet? I mean we haven't seen this reconfigured. Generous: Right. Claybaugh: I would like to see it more mitigated as much as possible and not necessarily just hold on 20. I think that the potential is there and I think the number of units that are going to encroach on that are going to be mitigated as well. Sacchet: Yeah, and part of our role is to lean on the city's interest side with these type of things. Claybaugh: I mean once it's reconfigured I think we can all take a look at it and evaluate for ourselves if they've done due diligence and mitigate it to the degree that we feel that they can. Whether that ends up being 20 feet, 10 feet, we'll be able to see that when the plan's reconfigured. Lillehaug: I guess that would probably end my comments and I think Commissioner Claybaugh kind of summed that up for me. If the applicant comes back and shows that they're doing the best they can, I think. I'm not saying I would or wouldn't support 20 but I think if they come back and shows us. Slagle: Just one quick add on. If we do, as a consensus decide to table, certainly I would hope and expect that staff will minimize, reduce the number of conditions. Sacchet: Right. Ed Hasek: Point of clarification? Sacchet: Yes. Go ahead. Point of clarification. 52 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Ed Hasek: Yes, you had, there'd been one request to try and look at a path through the woods down to the trail. Are we talking about a handicap accessible trail? Because there's a big difference between just a trail. Slagle: Sure, and I think that's a fair question and quite honestly I think staff, whether it's Matt or Todd Hoffman's group, you know. I just think it makes sense. Ed Hasek: Okay, if we can work with staff, that's fine. That's clarification. Slagle: I hope you do. Sacchet: A couple, are we done Steve? Lillehaug: Well I guess I'm sitting real close to him but I don't totally agree with putting a trail through the woods there. I think I would go with the applicant and say going out to 41 is adequate in my mind. Sacchet: Appreciate your point that out. That we're not necessarily unanimous on that one. From my end, I guess everybody else, did you have a chance? Yes? Then it's my turn. There are decidedly too many conditions. I mean this thing is not solid enough from that angle and especially some of the conditions where you have potentially very fundamental impact. I mean if we say they cannot cut into the primary zone, all the discussion we had here, well where would the pond go? Do they lose units? Would the street be more narrow? And I think that's fundamental enough that tabling is the appropriate thing to do. Now in terms of the framework of this, it's an excellent project. I mean you guys have really worked very hard. It shows. It's quality. And I believe that within that framework it's just going to get better. When you came in with the concept, it was in September was when it was, I think we actually, I might be wrong. I mean my memory sometimes gets a little murky but the way I recall it is we looked at this and then we thought that 18 units was probably going to be the balance so I don't have a problem with 18 units per se, but I also think that we made it relatively clear at that time that we wanted to preserve the northern tree line. So coming from that angle, I think what we actually discussed at that time is very much in line with what we're presenting here, also with what staff is recommending. Now, you made a point, you being the applicant, that you pretty exhaustively looked possibilities. Obviously you'd like to do it the way you have it here, but I think it'd be reasonable to look at the possibility that was suggesting in the pond where the barn is because indeed there are not that significant trees there. If you have to cut a little bit into the tree line, that's not going to be nearly as significant as where you're cutting into it now, and I do want to make a comment or maybe a compliment to your tree inventory. I mean this is fantastic. And it shows that you're cutting less than half the trees in terms of the ones you surveyed. But then you're looking at in terms of the caliper inches, if you add up the size of the trees, you do cut almost half. Little less than half so there we have a little different thing, and I do understand some of these trees are old. Some of them are not in the best shape. Some of them have been hit by lightning and what have you. However, just to balance that scale a little bit, and since I'm the person here on this group that pays attention to trees, looking. If you 53 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 look at the real significant trees, if you define real significant being 24 inches or more, there are 26 of them. And you're cutting 11 so there you're about a third. Closer to half. Kind of inbetween there. If you look at the real big ones, 30 inches and above, there are actually 11 trees there that are 30 inches or bigger. We're talking really old growth and I share the concern that the resident comment brought up. Out of those 11 trees, you're actually cutting 5. Cutting half of those. So if you look at that, the bigger the tree the more you're cutting. If you look at it in a different way and that came too in our discussion is what kind of trees it is. Because there's a difference in terms of value of box elder and an oak or a maple. If you look at maples, it's a little bit disappointing. You have about 24 maples that were surveyed. You're cutting 16. Cutting two-thirds of them. Oaks, you have surveyed 7. You're cutting 3. Again, just slightly less than half, so when we look at the real significant trees, I would conclude you're cutting a significant amount because they're standing where you're building. And some of them actually stand where you're cutting into the primary zone. I don't think there's much we can do about that so I'm not trying to make a case. Usually I try to find some trees and say well here's a good tree, why don't you save it. The only thing I can say, there's a couple where you're cutting in the primary zone. However, where this has weight and significance in terms of our discussion here tonight is that it gives, in my opinion additional impetus to preserve the primary land more significantly. Because we do take a lot of the significant trees out. So that is something I'd like to see also considered as we move this forward. I do support tabling this. I still feel a little awkward about this retaining wall. It seems, but I understand, appreciate your explaining with the ponding and all, how that plays together so that makes a little more sense. And again, this going to medium density per se in terms of how we're talking about it, is our lever to actually preserve the sense, the natural sensitive area. To have that trade off. To get to the clustering. Obviously it has to go somewhere to keep the balance of the development. That's my comments with that. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair, I have another comment I'd like to make. Sacchet: Yes, please go ahead Craig. Claybaugh: I was just looking and talking with my fellow commissioner here. The applicant had touched on the possibility of sprinkling all the units and if code supports it eliminating that hammerhead turn around. I'd like to at least point that out to possibly justifying those units a little further to the east if that hammerhead was taken out would help mitigate some of that exposure that you have in the primary setback area. And also possibly take a look at unit number 9 and possibly eliminating one of those units and justifying unit 7 and 8. Swinging that building around with two 2 unit buildings. Just between relocating the NURP pond and possibly justifying units 1 to 3 a little more to the east and eliminating unit number 9 and swinging 7 and 8 over, you're out one unit but I think you've gone a long ways towards mitigating almost all of the encroachment. That's all the comments I have. Sacchet: Thank you Craig. I'd like to have a motion please. 54 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Feik: I'll make a motion. I move that we table the application in it's entirety for Plowshares Development and Susan McAllister for 2930 West 78th Street. Sacchet: Got a motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: Second. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for Highlands of Bluff Creek, Plowshares Development at 2930 West 7e Street in it's entirety. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Sacchet: How about we take a 5 minute recess just to stretch. So we reconvene by 10:15. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE XXXI ENTITLED BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions of staff. Papke: Yeah, I've got a clarification question. Is there any issue? The language here is all lots of record in existence and parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a building has been constructed. Is there any issue with the term building here? I mean if I have an outhouse on this property, do I get grandfathered in the way this is worded? Generous: For that outhouse, yeah unless we wanted, yes. Unless you say principal building. Principal structure. Papke: That's my only question. Is this sufficiently unambiguous that we're not going to run into problems with interpretation later on? If it's a tree house or whatever, you know. I mean does that constitute a developed property if I've got a tree house on my, you know. Generous: That would seem as it says building. Now a principal building or principal structure may be a more accurate term because you have to have a principal structure before you can have accessory structures, etc. Papke: There you go. Generous: So that's a way to do it. Sacchet: So it would say principal structure that would. XI CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: 01/06/04 / CC DATE: 01/26/04 REVIEW DEADLINE: 02/16/04 CASE #: 04-01 BY: RG, LH, TH, ML, JS, MS, ST PROPOSAL: Request for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development Within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback, Highlands of Bluff Creek. LOCATION: 2930 West 78"' Street Northeast corner of West 78"Street and Trunk Highway 41 Q( APPLICANT: Plowshares Development, LLC Susan McAllister 1851 Lake Drive West #550 2930 West 78a' Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)361-0832 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District and BCO, Bluff Creek Overlay District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density ACREAGE: 6.52 acres DENSITY: 2.76 units/acre gross; 3.18 units/acre net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant in proposing an 18 unit townhouse project consisting of three two -unit structures and four three -unit structures. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUD's, and amendments to PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 2 of 20 The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing site plan for an 18 unit townhouse development, Highlands of Bluff Creek, consisting of three two -unit structures and four three -unit structures. Access to the lots would be via a private street which would be constructed to a 31 foot wide pavement standard, similar to a public street, rather than the 26 feet required. There would be one access point onto West 78`" Street, located at the existing curb cut for the property. The request includes a land use map amendment to permit the density transfer within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, since the PUD ordinance currently does not permit density transfer in properties guided residential — low density; and a Planned Unit Development which permits the clustering of housing units; a subdivision with a variance request for the setback from the Bluff Creek primary zone; a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; and site plan review for an 18 -unit townhouse development. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission in August 2003 to present a concept plan for the property. The concept plan included 24 units in three and four -unit structures. The Planning Commission was generally supportive of some type of townhouse project for the site, but with fewer units. As part of the submittal process, staff requested that the applicant prepare a sketch plan (sketch 1) to establish the capacity of the site based on a twin home development, ignoring the primary zone boundary, as outlined in the Bluff Creek Overlay District standards. The sketch plan established 18 units as the maximum potential development density of the site. However, such a plan does not assure that 18 units will be approved, since any proposed development would still need to comply with city code requirements. The applicant initially submitted a plan containing 19 units in three and four -unit structures (alternate plan 1). However, this plan ignored the primary zone boundary and proposed two access points on to West 78`h Street. Staff rejected the plans. The next plan (alternate plan 2) shifted the development south on the site in recognition of the primary zone. However, alternate plan 2 did not incorporate two and three -unit structures similar to the development to the east. The applicant Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 3 of 20 revised the plans to include two and three -unit buildings, Highlands of Bluff Creek, which is the proposal being reviewed by the Planning Commission. On the south and east sides of the development is Arboretum Village which consists of townhouses. To the north of West 78th Street, the townhouses are constructed as two, three and four -unit structures at a Net Density of 3.5 units per acre (137 units - 39 acres = 3.5). South of West 78t' Street consists of four, six and eight -unit structures at a Net Density of 8.7 units per acre (242 units -27.8 acres = 8.7). The overall net density of the Arboretum Village development is 5.7 units per acre. The project abuts the headwaters of Bluff Creek. Approximately 30 percent of the site is located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone that includes the wooded area on the north side of the development which slopes down to the wetland complex north of the property. The proposed development encroaches into the primary zone by approximately 35 feet adjacent to lots 4, 5 and 6 in exchange for expanding the primary zone by 40 feet in the area of the existing bam and corral. Additionally, the applicant has incorporated a planting plan within this area to help re - vegetate this area. However, the primary zone is intended to be preserved in its existing state and expanded and protected if possible. While staff supports the granting of a setback variance to pennit a 20 foot setback rather than a 40 foot setback due to the site constraints, we do not support the encroachment in to the primary zone itself. The applicant's site plan lays out the development in a logical manner and the houses have significant articulation. The only issue not addressed is how the individual buildings will be differentiated from one another. The applicant's narrative states that, "the use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection shall provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building." However, there is no specific plan submitted that will outline exactly how this "visual variety" will be achieved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. Additionally, the applicant should incorporate the use of different window treatments, e.g. shutters, window boxes, etc., and types, e.g. multi -paned, half round, dormers, etc., to assist in the individualization of the buildings. Staff is recommending that the land use plan amendment be approved contingent on final PUD development plan approval and Metropolitan Council approval, the concept and preliminary Planned Unit Development be approved, the preliminary plat be approved with a variance to the Bluff Creek setback subject to modifications to the plan and the appropriate conditions of approval, the conditional use permit be approved, and the site plan be approved. BACKGROUND On July 24, 2000, the City Council approved the applicant's request for a zoning ordinance amendment (ZOA #00-1) to allow petting farms as an interim use in the A-2, Agricultural Estate district. Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 4 of 20 On July 24, 2000, the City Council also approved the applicant's request for an interim use permit (IUP #00-2) to operate a petting farm. In May 2001, the City approved Arboretum Village, a planned unit development located directly south and east of the applicant's property. As part of this development, an outlot was created to preserve the natural features. This outlot is south of a wetland and includes the wetland buffer area. This outlot abuts the applicant's property on the north and east sides. In 2001, the city undertook utility expansion in the BC -7 and BC -8 sewer subdistricts. This utility improvement brought sanitary sewer and water service from Galpin Boulevard to the west side of Highway 41. As part of the Arboretum Village 2°d Addition, the developer extended sanitary sewer service to the eastern property line of the site. As part of a state project on TH 41 that corresponded with the Arboretum Village development, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has required the southerly driveway access on the applicant's property to Highway 41 be closed and relocated for safety reasons to West 78"' Street. On June 24, 2002, the Chanhassen City Council approved Conditional Use Permit #2000-3 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District for Miss Rosie's Farm and an amendment to Interim Use Permit #2000-2 to permit revision of the petting farm plan with a variance for the use of gravel driveways or grass pave system. REZONING Justification for Rezoning: to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 6.5 acres from A2 to PUD -R, Planned Unit Development -R. The project consists of 18 townhouse units incorporated in three 2 -unit structures and four 3 -unit structures. The review criteria are taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD in this instance is to permit density clustering for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for an internal transfer of density. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. The proposed development provides a compatible development with the surrounding development and preserves the Bluff Creek corridor subject to the recommended modifications to the plan. Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 5 of 20 The proposed amendment and rezoning assist in the furtherance of the following land use goals of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line. The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing opportunities. The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between different uses of different types. Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. The proposed amendment and rezoning assist in the furtherance of the following housing goals of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: A balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life -cycle. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. Staff is proposing the following development standards govern the development of the property. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a townhouse development consisting of two and three -unit structures. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each building proposed for development shall comply with the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses Two and three -unit townhouse structures. Accessory Use (on Outlot B only) Gazebo Retaining Wall Maintenance Shed School Bus Shelter Picnic Shelter Sidewalks Project Identification Sign Street, Private Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 6 of 20 C. Setbacks The following building setbacks shall apply West 78`s Street 50 ft. TH 41 50 ft. Perimeter of townhouse lot (front, rear and end) 10 ft. East Development Property Line 30 ft. Bluff Creek Primary Zone 20 ft. d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height 1. The standard for hard surface coverage is 30% for the overall development. 2. The maximum building height shall be two stories/35 feet. e. Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Materials used shall be from the approved material pallet. 3. All exterior equipment shall be screened by walls or landscaping. L Site landscaping and Screening All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, shall be installed when the adjacent grading and construction is completed 2. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. g. Signage One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance on West 78h Street. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 7 of 20 3. Signage shall be comprised of individual dimensional letters and logos. h. Lighting A shoe box fixture with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development for area lighting. 4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. SUBDIVISION REVIEW Lot Tabulation: Lot Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.) 1 3,960 46 86 2 3,103 36 86 3 3,960 46 86 4 3,960 46 86 5 3,103 36 86 6 3,944 45 86 7 3,917 42 81 8 3,927 42 82 9 3,960 46 86 10 3,103 36 86 11 3,960 46 86 12 3,960 46 86 13 3,103 36 86 14 3,960 46 86 15 3,960 46 86 16 3,960 46 86 17 3,960 46 86 18 3,986 46 86 19 98,497 NA NA Outlot A 80,376 NA NA TH 41 37,374 Total 284,007 The Planned Unit Development does not have minimum lot sizes. The overall density is 3.18 units per acre. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The Bluff Creek Corridor Study is a vision and planning document that has the following goals: Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 8 of 20 1. Protection, Restoration and Enhancement of Natural Resources 2. Acquire land to create a continuous greenway along the creek from the Minnesota River to Lake Minnewashta 3. Create development standards that manage upstream such as mixed or cluster development easements and alternative zoning 4. Develop educational watershed awareness program 5. Develop a Natural Resources Plan An overlay district was created for Bluff Creek with a primary and secondary corridor. The primary corridor boundary delineates a conservancy zone where undistributed conditions are desired. This is the area where any type of development and/or human activity directly impacts the morphological and biological characteristics of Bluff Creek. The secondary corridor boundary delineates a management zone. This is the area where development and/or urban activities directly affect the stream's upland ecosystem. The preservation and enhancement of this area will result in a better habitat and less strain on the stream. Management practices for this area focus on the preservation and enhancement of upland vegetation and the reduction of peak flows. The northern portion of the site is enveloped by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Primary Zone extends to the edge of the canopy/tree line. All structures must maintain a 40 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 20 feet of the setback. Lots 1-7 do not meet the required 40 -foot setback and, in fact, encroach into the Primary Zone. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone must be preserved. Due to site constraints, staff recommends a variance that would allow a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary with no grading occurring within the first 10 feet of the setback. Lots 4, 5 and 6 do not meet the recommended 20 -foot setback and 10 -foot "no -grade" requirements. Roof drainage and sump pumps for those houses adjacent to the Bluff Creek Primary Zone shall be directed to the drain -tile system behind the street curb. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The plans propose to grade about 50% of the site for the new 18 -unit townhouse pads, a proposed private driveway ending with a partial hammer -head turnaround and a storm water pond. The proposed grading will prepare the site for lookout -type dwellings on Lots 2-11 and full basement walkouts on the remaining lots. Drainage swales have been proposed along the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. The plan proposes a 9 -foot retaining wall along the east side of the development. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall over 4 feet will require a building permit and must be designed by a Minnesota Registered Professional Structural Engineer. Also, all walls over 4 feet in height will require an approved safety fence at the top of the wall. The existing site drainage runs off site from the southwesterly quarter of the parcel to the east and north toward Bluff Creek. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 9 of 20 the drainage from Lots 12-18, all of the street drainage, all of the front yard drainage from the remaining lots and route the storm water to a proposed NURP pond in the southeasterly side of the site. The applicant is proposing an outlet overflow point to control the discharge of water from the proposed pond. The over flow water will be conveyed via storm sewer to an existing storm sewer, along the south side of West 78th Street, ending at a regional storm pond at the northwest quad of Century Boulevard and Highway 5 intersection. The amount of area that will still drain off site to the north toward Bluff Creek has been dramatically reduced. To date, only summary drainage calculations have been submitted. The applicant must submit calculations with a drainage map for staff review. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NLTRP) standards and utilize a 10:1 safety bench slope at the normal water level (NWL). The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and Type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot minimum rock construction entrance, per City Detail Plate No.5301, should be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. Storm Water Management A manhole with a two -foot sump should be installed as the last structure that is road accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond. The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Complete storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that, "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time." The note regarding positive drainage should be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. Easements A drainage and utility easement should be provided over the proposed storm water pond. Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 10 of 20 Erosion and Sediment Control Riprap and geotextile fabric should be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-duty mono -mono silt fence with 4 -foot spacing of metal T -posts and 1" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light duty silt fence should also be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Tyne of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 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. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on residential townhome development rates of $1,814/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 6 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $10,884. Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 11 of 20 Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Medium density townhome developments have a connection charge of $3,528 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $21,168 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for water quality if NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from off-site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due and payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $32,052. Other Agencies 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [for dewatering]) and comply with their conditions of approval. iTPILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Century Trail; also water service is available from West 78th Street. The applicant is proposing to extend the sewer line along the private street to service the proposed lots with Lots 16, 17 and 18 being serviced from the south side (back) of the house. Staff is recommending that the sanitary line be moved outside of the water level of the pond to avoid future maintenance problems. The watermain is proposed to be extended within the private street from West 78th Street. Staff is recommending that the watermain be looped through the site and connect with the existing water stub at the southeast corner of the property. A minimum 30 -foot wide public easement will be required over the public sewer and water -main. Also, a 20 -foot wide public easement will be required over the public sewer along the south side of the houses. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and street improvements. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This remaining balance may be re - spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. In addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2003 trunk hookup charge is $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer, $1,876 per unit for water -main and the SAC fee is $1,275 per Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 12 of 20 unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a pre -con meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District and MnDOT. STREETS The plan shows a full access off West 78th Street along the south side of the parcel. The applicant is proposing a 31 -foot wide private street with concrete curb and gutter and a partial hammer -head turnaround. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Marshal. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design. LANDSCAPING Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the McAllister parcel are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 6.52 ac. Baseline canopy coverage 42% or 2.75 ac. Minimum canopy coverage required 30% or L% ac. Proposed tree preservation 28% or 1.84 ac. The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage .12 ac. Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement .14 ac. or 6272 SF Total number of trees to be planted 6 trees The developer will be required to plant 6 trees as a part of reforestation in addition to one tree per home according to city ordinance. Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 13 of 20 Buffer yard planting is required along W. 78`s Street, Highway 41 and the east property line. Although existing vegetation along the highway is proposed to be preserved, the developer is including additional landscaping in that area. Buffer yard requirements are as shown in the table: Landscaping Item Required Proposed Buffer yard B* — South 9 overstory trees 11 overstory trees property line, 440', 13 understory trees 24 understory trees buffer width 20' 22 shrubs 0 shrubs Buffer yard B* — West 5 overstory trees 5 overstory trees property line, 250', 8 understory trees 9 understory trees buffer width 20' 13 shrubs 18 shrubs Buffer yard B* — East 5 overstory trees 3 overstory trees property line, 250', 8 understory trees 13 understory trees buffer width 20' 13 shrubs 0 shrubs Boulevard Trees — W. 15 overstory trees 13 overstory trees 78t° St., 1 per 30' Applicant does not meet minimum requirements for buffer yard plantings. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the minimum number of plantings required. The existing woods on the north side of the property consist of a large stand of maple -basswood forest, a type of native forest that is generally referred to as `Big Woods.' It is of good quality; there is sufficient regeneration of trees, only minimal amounts of buckthorn around the edges of the woods and minimally impacted by the existing use of the property. Staff recommends that these woods be preserved fully intact. The primary boundary line should run parallel to the edge of the woods. Preservation of this area would also help greatly in meeting canopy coverage requirements for the site and eliminate the need for reforestation plantings. PARKS AND RECREATION Staff has reviewed the Plowshares Development proposal for an 18 -unit townhouse project (McAllister Parcel) as it relates to the park and trail section of the city's comprehensive plan. This property lies within the park service area of the Bluff Creek Park Preserve. The preserve features expansive open space, natural areas, and a trail system; however, a public playground or ball field is not located within walking distance. A private playground facility owned by the Arboretum Village Association is located just south of the McAllister property. A sidewalk connection to the city's comprehensive trail system should be included as a condition of approval for this project. The nearest section of the trail system is located just to the south of the property along West 78`" Street. Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 14 of 20 It is recommended that the applicant pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on seventeen of the eighteen lots. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single family home on the property. The park fee will vary from $2,000 to $2,400 per unit, depending on the number of dwellings in each building. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The development proposes a total of 18 townhouse units consisting of three two -unit structures and four three -unit structures. The proposal includes single level with walkouts or basements. Access to the lots would be via a private street which would be constructed to a 31 foot wide pavement. The site plan proposed preserving the majority of the trees within the northern portion of the property. Additionally, trees shall be preserved along Highway 41. The applicant's site plan lays out the development in a logical manner and the houses have significant articulation. The only issue not addressed is how the individual buildings will be differentiated from one another. The applicant's narrative states that, "the use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection shall provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building." However, there is no specific plan submitted that will outline exactly how this "visual variety" will be achieved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. Additionally, the applicant should incorporate the use of different window treatments, e.g. shutters, window boxes, etc., and types, e.g. multi -paned, half round, dormers, etc., to assist in the individualization of the buildings. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following five motions and adoption of the attached findings of fact and recommendation: A. "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the land use amendment from Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density contingent upon final development approval of the Planned Unit Development and Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Land Use Amendment. B. "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council conceptual and preliminary approval of PUD #2003-3 rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development — Residential, PUD -R." C. "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council Preliminary Plat approval of the proposed development for Highlands of Bluff Creek with a variance (Variance #2003-19) to permit a 20 foot setback from the Bluff Creek Primary Zone, plans prepared by Westwood Development Services, Inc., dated 10/31/03, revised 12/05/03 and 12/17/03, subject to the following conditions. Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 15 of 20 1. Proposed Lots 4, 5 and 6 of the preliminary plat shall be eliminated or moved to comply with the minimum setback requirements. 2. Re -designate Lot 19 as Outlot B. 3. Provide block numbers for the individual lot clusters. 4. Final Plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to West 78`s Street. 5. The applicant shall submit association covenants to the city for review prior to recording. The association shall be responsible for the maintenance of any common elements of the development. 6. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on seventeen of the eighteen lots based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single family home on the property. The park fee, using 2003 park fees, will vary from $2,000 to $2,400 per unit, depending on the number of dwellings in each building. 7. The Development Design Standards shall be incorporated in the development contract. 8. All structures shall maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. 9. Roof drainage and sump pump systems for houses adjacent to the Bluff Creek Primary Zone shall be directed to the drain -tile behind the street curb. 10. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). 11. A manhole with a two -foot sump shall be installed as the last structure that is road accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond. 12. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Complete storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. 13. The note regarding positive drainage shall be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDF.S) dewatering regulations. 14. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over the proposed storm water pond. Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 16 of 20 15. Riprap and geotextile fabric shall be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. 16. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light duty silt fence shall be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. Silt fencing shall be removed upon completion of the development and the re-establishment of vegetation. 17. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 18. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope zed Within Stabilized Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14d Flatter than 10:1 2d 19. 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. 20. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. 21. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 6 acres and using 2003 SWAP fees, the water quality fees associated with this project are $10,884; the water quantity fees are approximately $21,168. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from off-site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due and payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $32,052. The final SWAP fees shall be based on the fee schedule in place at the time of final plat approval. 22. 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)), and comply with their conditions of approval. 23. Each unit/lot must be provided with separate utility services. 24. A permit for demolition must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 17 of 20 25. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 26. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 - year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 - year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. The applicant must submit storm sewer and storm pond sizing with a drainage map for staff review. 27. Staff recommends that Type H silt fence be used along all side of the grading area and Type III silt fence be used adjacent to Bluff Creek along the north. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Tree fencing shall be removed upon the completion of the site development. A 75 -foot minimum rock construction entrance must be used at the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 28. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat. 29. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 30. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and street improvements. The remaining assessment due and payable to the City is $3,495.59. This remaining balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. In addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2003 trunk hookup charge is $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer, $1,876 per unit for water -main, and the SAC fee is $1,275 per unit. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. These fees may be changed in 2004. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. 31. The applicant must be aware that the public sewer and water -main require a pre -con meeting before the building permit issuance. 32. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 18 of 20 regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc. 33. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2109A, 2201, 3101, 3104, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300 and 5301. 34. Realign the proposed sidewalk end away from the existing light pole and show a pedestrian curb ramp on the southeasterly comer of the parcel. 35. Add a concrete driveway apron to the plans at the proposed access. 36. Add a stop sign at the exit side of the access. 37. Add a street light at the access. 38. On the utility plan a. Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. b. Show all the sanitary and water services. c. Show the sanitary manholes number, rim and invert elevations. d. Add a note, "All water service must be 1 -inch copper and all sanitary services must be 6 -inch PVC-SDR26. " e. Revise the second note from City of Farmington to City of Chanhassen and update the specification dates to year 2003. 39. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Add a storm sewer schedule. d. Show the storm sewer pipe size. e. Show a minimum 75 -foot rock construction entrance. E Show the storm pond 10:1 bench per NURP standards. g. Show the retaining wall top and bottom elevations. h. Show the catch basin and manhole structure rim and invert elevations. i. Last storm manhole discharging to the pond must be a 2 -foot sump. j. Revise the fifth note from storm sewer class III to class 5. 40. On the preliminary plat: a. Side and rear lot line easements should be shown as 5 feet wide. b. Show all existing and proposed drainage and utility easements. c. Show the pavement width. d. Show the concrete driveway apron. Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 19 of 20 41. A minimum 20 -foot wide public easement is required for the pond outlet which extends outside the site property lines. 42. Any work outside of the subject property or right-of-way will require temporary easements. 43. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. 44. Move the sanitary line outside of the water level of the pond. 45. Loop the watermain through the site. 46. Any retaining wall over 4 feet will require a building permit and must be designed by a Minnesota Registered Professional Structural Engineer. Also, all walls over 4 feet in height will require an approved safety fence at the top of the wall. 47. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Marshal. 48. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design. D. "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2003-10 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. The development must comply with the approved Planned Unit Development and Subdivision requirements for the property. E. "The Planning recommends approval of Site Plan #2003-11, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated December 17, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The applicant work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. 3. The applicant shall revise landscape plan to show the minimum number of planting required for each of the buffer yards. 4. The applicant shall revise landscape plan to show one tree per unit in the front yard. Highlands of Bluff Creek December 29, 2003 Page 20 of 20 5. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the minimum number of boulevard trees required along W. 78th Street. 6. The applicant shall submit a foundation planting plan for city review and approval prior to final plat approval. 7. Applicant shall plant 6 trees on site to meet reforestation requirements. 8. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system as they are over 8,500 sq. ft. in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement, property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 9. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire - resistive construction. 10. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 11. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Development Review Application 3. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing 4. Memorandum from Ed Hasek to Bob Generous dated 12/17/03 5. Picture of Front (right) of Proposed Townhouse 6. Picture of Front (left) of Proposed Townhouse 7. Picture of Rear of Proposed Townhouse 8. Concept Plan 9. Sketch 1 McAllister Parcel 10. Alternate Plan 1 11. Alternate Plan 2 12. Reduced Copy Highland of Bluff Creek Preliminary Plat 13. Reduced Copy Highland of Bluff Creek Preliminary Utility Plan 14. Reduced Copy Highland of Bluff Creek Preliminary Grading & Erosion Control Plan 15. Reduced Copy Highland of Bluff Creek Preliminary Landscape Plan 16. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision dated 8/12/03 17. Letter from Aaron Mlynek to Robert Generous dated 12/22/03 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review. On January 6, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development — Residential rezoning (PUD -R) for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A. 4. Land Use Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. C) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: a) The proposed development preserves desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including mature trees, creeks and wetlands. b) The proposed development is a more efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through the clustering of the development on the site and the use of a private street. C) The proposed development is a high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. d) The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. 2 e) The proposed development is Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. f) The proposed development preserves the Bluff Creek Corridor primary zone. g) The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not affordable housing. h) The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use of the clustering of buildings. i) The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. 6. Subdivision a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance subject to approval of the variance and revisions as recommended in the staff report. b) The subdivision meets all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. c) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan. d) 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. e) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter. f) The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage. g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will dedicate all appropriate new easements. h) The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are available or will be constructed with the development. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: (1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. (2) Lack of adequate roads. (3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. (4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: a) The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b) The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c) The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d) The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e) The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f) The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g) The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h) The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i) The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j) The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k) The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. 1) The proposed development meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback variance. 8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to develop the site and preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The site constraints of the primary zone and West 78`s Street lead to the need for a variance. c) The propose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with surrounding development. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but is due to site constraints. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a) The proposed development is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements; C) The proposed development preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable subject to the revisions of the staff report by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developments or developing areas; d) The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space subject to the revisions recommended in the staff report with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: (1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; (2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; (3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and (4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 10. The planning report #04-01 dated January 6, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. 0 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development — Residential rezoning (PUD -R) for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback subject to the recommendations contained in the staff report. t�- ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 6t° day of January, CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION M 7 Uli Sacchet, Chairman EXHIBIT A Outlot J, ARBORETUM VELLAGE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. ULTI7 That part of Outlot G, ARBORETUM VILLAGE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast comer of said Outlot J; thence South 01 degrees 06 minutes 34 seconds East, assumed bearing along the east line of said Outlot J, a distance of 30.75 feet, to the northerly right of way line of West 78th Street; thence South 84 degrees 49 minutes 58 seconds East, along said northerly right of way line of West 78th Street, a distance of 154.34 feet; thence southeasterly along a tangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of 12 degrees 28 minutes 29 seconds, a radius of 559.00 feet and an arc distance of 121.71 feet; thence North 27 degrees 50 minutes 58 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 33.03 feet; thence northeasterly along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 26 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds, a radius of 114.00 feet and an arc distance of 52.15 feet; thence North 01 degrees 06 minutes 34 seconds West, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 6.67 feet; thence South 88 degrees 53 minutes 26 seconds West, a distance of 322.62 feet to the point of beginning. U D1 That part of the East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 9, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at said northeast comer of Outlot J; thence South 88 degrees 53 minutes 26 seconds West, assumed bearing along the northerly line of said Outlot J, a distance of 357.32 feet, to the centerline of State Trunk Highway Number 41 as dedicated on said plat of ARBORETUM VILLAGE; thence northeasterly, along a non-tangential curve and along said centerline of State Trunk Highway Number 41 as dedicated on said plat of ARBORETUM VILLAGE, concave to the east, having a central angle of 12 degrees 24 minutes 52 seconds, a radius of 2292.34 feet and an arc distance of 496.69 feet to a westerly extension of a southerly line of said Outlot G the chord of said curve bears North 22 degrees 08 minutes 29 seconds East; thence North 88 degrees 53 minutes 26 seconds East along said westerly extension and said southerly line of Outlot G, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 388.79 feet; thence South 46 degrees 06 minutes 34 seconds East, a distance of 135.00 feet; thence South 01 degrees 06 minutes 34 seconds East, a distance of 360.00 feet; thence South 88 degrees 53 minutes 26 seconds West, a distance of 322.62 feet, to the point of beginning. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 -y \ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: I u_c OWNER: 1�0. •- Ma /N1 \)u^ ADDRESS: t5S 1 1. e4� a SSo ADDRESS: "2g30 W• -+gr'j Com•-��5,� VAO 55.31 -4 - TELEPHONE (Daytime) qSt • 3 V 1. g3 2 TELEPHONE: ASI- 41-4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment —Temporary Sales Permit �P.✓ P Nn Gd: J..� aVoo �C Conditional Use Permit b C -o '! +,A t' _ Vacation of ROW/Easements * 4LS Interim Use Permit Variance 1-10 .; -r- S:1 -b Non -conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit X Planned Unit Development' i'+5D _ Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review X Notification Sign W%1- do✓• Shr X Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" 50 eos ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARNVAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* a is TOTAL FEE$ 34L0 t x4067 Pd .�1i►,125 A list of all property owners w_ithin,5_0Q (feet of the bound�Iries of the romust be included with Jthe application.4V c� uKM i'� Ffq, ''TV1l`J Il� Oe,:, Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DE; TOTALACREAGE �� S �i 1 ✓Ili `tl WETLANDS PRESENT A,YES NO PRESENT ZONING%l:i.t�� REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION 61u la4a 1 1. 6 - REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 1 �� REASON FOR THIS REQUEST -"FO AeiXQaVkE, 'T le, VrnVK: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120- days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Ownernatu of Fee Application Received on Fee Paid to) 31 lo3 Date 1 D 3/ p3 Date 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. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on December 26, 2003, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for PUD 2003-3, located at 2930 West 78th Street, Applicant Plowshares Development LLC and Susan McAllister, to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this _ day of 2003. Notary Public g:\eng\fo=\affidavit.dm NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Planned Unit Development #2003-3 APPLICANT: Plowshares Development LLC Susan McAllister LOCATION: 2930 West 78th Street NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Plowshares Development LLP/ Susan McAllister, is requesting a Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback Requirements on 6 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. The property is located at 2930 West 78th Street (northeast comer of West 78th Street & Highway 41). What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and 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 227-1131 or e-mail bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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 December 25, 2003. City Review Procedure Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. Staff prepares a report on the subject application. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. g:\pla \fur Veview procedure ALFONSO & CHRISTINE M CORREA ALLAN D FISCHER ALLEN K JR & JENNIFER R LARSON 2828 CENTURY TRL 7641 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL 7647 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 ALLEN M ODEGARD 2841 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 AMY E FISHER 2836 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 ARBORETUM VILLAGE COMMUNITY BARBARA ANN MILLER SUITE NORTHWEST PKY MN 55121- 7661 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN EAGAN M SUICHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 BRENDA C BROWN 7634 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 BRYAN M FRITZ 2838 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 DALE C & KIM R HOWELL 7644 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 DAVID L BUSS & ERIN KAY STEINKE 7638 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 GARY & JENNIFER SANDQUIST 7711 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 HREIDAR & ELINOR A AGUSTSSON 2836 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 BRIAN K MOE 7700 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 BYRON A & MARY M OLSON 7331 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8038 DALE R & JEAN A RUSCH 2856 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 DEBBRA C HILL 7640 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 GUILLERMO E & JAMIE A ARIAS 7633 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 JACOB O CROOKS & MICHAEL A & RENATE E CROOKS 7450 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8037 AMYIBOEHM 7702 COACH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 BRANDON B WAGNER 7659 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 BRIAN W SHEPARD & NICHOLE M WHETSTINE 7636 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 CATHERINE A HOLTE 7630 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 DARRYL E COSTELLO PO BOX 34 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-0034 ERIK M JOHNSON PO BOX 545 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0545 HELEN R HUBER 2828 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 553174434 JANET K OPHEIM 7704 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 JASON & JENNIFER VEUM JEFFRY KARL RUSSELL JENNIFER A VONESCHEN 7629 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR 7632 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR 7643 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 JOAN B DYGERT JOHN C SCHIELE & HOLLY J BENTZ 2824 CENTURY TRL 2848 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 JOHN M WIGEN KATHRYN ELLEN GRIEGER 7625 CENTURY CT 2923 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4423 KELLY A PEDERSON & JOHN H & KELLY KAY SCHUFT JUDY A E 7702 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 CHA LARRY A & VIVIAN S NELSON LEAH L RUDNICKI & JACOB C & 2832 CENTURY TRL BETH A RUDNICKI CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 2837 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 LINDA LEE SIMON LISA A ALT 7706 COACH DR 7703 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 MATTHEW J NARDO MATTHEW L MAETZOLD & JILL K 7650 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL WASHBURN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 7613 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 MICHAEL B HERMAN MICHAEL D & AMY L ARMBRUST 2921 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV 7630 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4423 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 MICHAEL W SCHACHTERLE & MOLLY J LYSFJORD CRYSTAL E SCHACHTERLE 7652 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL 2852 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 NANCY JEAN LARSON PAUL J & KELLY K RAIMONDO 7704 COACH DR 7632 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA CORP 815 NORTHWEST PKY SUITE 140 EAGAN MN 55121-1580 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA JOHN F ALTENBERND 7639 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 KEITH D TURNQUIST 7701 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 KIMBERLY B KOZAR 7629 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 LEE A AMIOT & JENNIFER M SCHMOLL 7617 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 MARYLJOHNSON 7633 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 MERALD A & ELAINE A KROGSTAD 7460 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8037 MICHAEL D & JANICE M CHOCKLAN 7651 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 NANCY A GALLAGHER 7705 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 553174426 PHILLIP A GROTHE 7628 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 C/O REAL ESTATE OFFICE ROBERT M & JILL R SOMERS 319 15TH AVE SE 2839 COACH CT 424 DON HOWE BLDG CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55455-0118 ROBERTA J RONBECK & JOAN LRONRYAN C BROWN & SARA M RYAN 2840 CE K 7642 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL 2840 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 SHANNON M HOGAN SHAWN R KERRIGAN 7651 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN 7648 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 553174425 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 SHIRLEY A FORS STEVEN W RABY & MARY E 2820 CENTURY TRL FRASCZAK CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 7621 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 SUSAN MCALLISTER THERESA A LINN 2930 78TH ST W 7635 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4501 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 TRACY J DOHENY VICTOR D & KATHERINE T OATES 7634 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR 2832 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434 WESLEY A DAHLSTROM WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH 7637 CENTURY CT 7801 PARK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9200 WILLIAM E HART RICH SLAGLE 7653 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT R PASS & ELIZABETH D RAINEY-PASS 2844 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 SHEILA K DEWOLF 2830 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434 SUMIKA CHAI 7649 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 THOMAS J SYLVESTER 7632 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 VINH Q DO NGUYEN 7657 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 WILLIAM A & IRENE V HINES 7631 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 Concept Planned Unit Development #2003-3 Public Hearing Notice Area (500 feet) L�--� 7 � 9 r a/�aQ00 a priv, Zimmerman Road 2930 West 78th Street West m o ® ��6 ❑ CO o ® B N 0 E Von Hi hway 5 Arboretum Boule Fu :ruerj S Co Westwood Professional Services, Inc. PLANNING • ENGINEERING . SURVEYING MEMORANDUM To: Bob Generous, Planner, City of Chanhassen From: Ed Hasek Date: December 17. 2003 Plowshares - Highlands of Re: Bluff Creek W CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED 7599 Anagram Drive DEC 1 7 2003 Eden Praide. MN 55344 Phone: 952-937-5150 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT fax 952-937-5822 Tall free 1.888-937-5150 E-mail: wps®weriwoodps.com MN CMrSIMETRO 5T. El0UD RRAINERD Project No.: 20032566 On behalf of Plowshare Development LLC we are pleased to submit this application for the development of the Highlands of Bluff Creek as a residential townhome neighborhood. With this application we are requesting approval for a comprehensive plan amendment, PUD, site plan review, CUP, subdivision, and variance for the construction of a private street and 18 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of land that includes two small parcels currently owned by the City (.34 ac.), and Pulte Homes (.10 ac.). The parcel is located in the northeast corner of Highway 41 and West 781h Street. EXISTING CONDITIONS A hobby farm that includes a home, barn, and several out buildings currently occupies the property. With the construction of West 7e Street access was change from Highway 41 to a curb cut on 781h Street. The property lies within the HC -2 Overlay District, and partially within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The approximate BCOD boundaries (primary and secondary) have been located both on the plans and in the field. These boundaries have been adjusted as directed by staff, and approximately 30% of the site is currently within the BCOD primary zone. Roughly 42% of the site is covered by the canopy of trees that include oak, maple, basswood, elm, pine and spruce species, the majority of which are located on the north half of the property that slopes to the north and to Bluff Creek. A tree survey has been completed, and 106 significant trees were located and tagged. Field notes indicate that 14% of the significant trees are diseased or damaged, which is not unusual for a mature oak -maple -basswood woodland. Soils found on the property are generally loamy and of the Kilkenny -Lester soils series, well drained, 0 to 10% slopes, and suited to typical residential construction practices. Slopes ranging to 40 % exist along the west and south edges of the site as back -slopes down to the roadways created when Highway 41 and West 781h Street were constructed. The property drains in all directions from a high point of elevation 1011 feet located just west of the existing home. The south two-thirds of the site is generally flat and sits 2 to 8 feet above 78th Street. Public utilities are available to the property from West 781h Street and Century Trail. A regional storm pond is located to the southeast and along Highway 5 at Century Boulevard. The Arboretum Village subdivision (zoned PUDR) abuts the parcel on the south (6 -unit structures) and east (2, 3, and 4 unit townhomes) sides. Highway 41 separates the site from a single-family home to the west, and Bluff Creek is located to the north. Desgning the Fu Today._4n 1972 Page 2 of 3 December 17, 2003 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Plowshares Development LLC is proposing the development of 18 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of property to a density of 3.18 units per acre. Buildings will vary from 2 to 3 homes in size, and will have full, lookout, or walkout basements. Each home is of single story construction with a full basement and approximately 2,700 s.f. of living area possible. Attached 2 car garages are 480 s.f. in area. The site will be accessed by a single 31 -foot back-to-back private street built to City standards with a 5 - foot wide sidewalk located on one side of the street (adjacent to the curb). A 6 -foot sidewalk will also be constructed along West 7e Street to link Century Trail to Highway 41. Each home will have a two -car garage, and guest parking (2.5 spaces per home) will be provided in the driveways and on one side of the private street. Storm water that is collected from impervious surfaces (approximately 1.5 acres) will be routed to a pond located in the south-east corner of the site. Project utilities will connect to existing stubs in 7e Street and Century Trail. Each home will be individually connected to all utilities. Approximately 27% (.75 ac.) of the existing tree canopy will be removed for the construction of roads, driveways, homes, and associated grading. Outlot A (proposed as the Primary BCOD Zone in the north part of the property) will be preserved by a Conservation Easement. Care will be taken to preserve additional trees and associated tree canopy at the time of construction. An area of existing trees and canopy (and associated topography) along Highway 41 will also be preserved to provide separation and screening from this arterial roadway. Best Management Practices, and the standards and specifications established in the City Ordinances will be adhered to to reduce any additional tree losses. As indicated previously, the north portion of the site will be preserved in the BCOD. A variance to allow construction to 15 feet from the primary zone is requested in order to place as much of the site in the BCOD as possible. The proposed BCOD will preserve the most native and significant area of woodlands and slope on the site. Approximately 4,000 s.f. of the primary zone will be removed, and approximately 4,700 s.f. of area will be added and reforested with 16 native species trees planted roughly 15 feet on center. Landscaping will be concentrated as additional screening along Highway 41 and West 78th street. A 2 to 6 foot berm along West 78h (at Highway 41) will further increase screening in this area. A foundation planting plant will provide additional landscape interest and detailing at the entry and front fagade of each home. We have provide staff with the necessary sketch development plan (meeting all of the ordinance requirements) to support the construction of 18 homes on this site. The sketch plan yielded an average of 11,400 s.f. per unit and included a pubic cul-de-sac. The average area per unit for the proposed plan is 12,500 s.f. per home with a private street built to city standards. The proposed 2 and 3 unit buildings are consistent with surrounding development (2, 3, 4, and 6 unit buildings) in Arboretum Village, and provide a reasonable transition of land use and density adjacent to Highway 41. The inclusion of three unit buildings also provides the housing market in this area with an interior unit at a slightly different price point. The front entry/porch is recessed from the front of the building by 6 to 8 feet to break up the front fagade, and a porch and deck at the rear of each home Designing the future today... M I N N E A P O L I S S T. C L O U D Page 3 of 3 December 17, 2003 provides 10 feet of relief along the back of the structures. The use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection will provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building. The requirements for storm water ponding, and associated requirements for floor elevations above anticipated water levels, dictates that the buidings on this site be kept relatively high. The pond is located along West 78" to preserve the BCOD. If the pond were to be constructed in the BCOD (as is allowed), approximately 1 acre of tree canopy, and an additional 20 to 25 significant trees would be removed from the site. We appreciate the opportunity that we have had in working with City planning, engineering, and other staff to bring this project forward for your review. We have had occasion to meet with the various departments to identify and work through issues, and have responded by continuing to refine and rework the development plans. We are extremely excited about this project and look forward to working with the City of Chanhassen and it staff toward the successful completion of the Highlands of Bluff Creek. Designing the future today... M I N N E A P O L I S S T. C L O U D .00000 I�I F, f % � f s aw �v zi� 0 I I MIMI= 1, g ¢@6taagtn�9�?a8� 1� *- 11 0 � 7 __-_-- ON Jia,@ ff or °j N ° 3"26"E 388.79 -- � ea Zps ° )0 mss. -� � Con vation fas en 996 lo 00 / 4 \ 40" l C a 50" /o SB / OUTL AT 1 019 I Q ' OUILOT A --'0.66 AC. S8 m OU77-07 C Z I T �10 4 40" SB o .� I OUMOT C S8 m OU77-07 C Z T �10 4 40" SB o .� 'f'J9` 8 �O OUMOT C N84 49 $EW 43.8¢ ,T ,�4^� vv i L_v i v 040 AC. ,5 - //N•L9°3o Tt� v 11 >rr T LL t 1 2 . = 3 �a 3 ° '6 r S 51L III' I T \ I 0 Q O F U M M N z 0 U 0 LL F O 2 a r I I l — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _/_ — O F U M M N z 0 U 0 LL F O 2 a J IL_ 3 Y9 6 �t s •e r Q � � Sa6 IISF � I II� ❑ �'' # �#! i�F��,,, yE is J IL_ 3 e � i J--- ——— —— ———— — —— — —. - — —.-. J IL_ 3 � •i S a a I / �— — — _ _ — — — — — — — — -_ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - 0 R qy� V � � sus w ■� i ':ag?Aa li� i ! a M ;yt' gaj3e "p idg'9(eF q,r, s ¢' 61 e PAR a �� x� � Ea$a�(. �0 a§11�¢G' %. 2 $aa 3t 3 e Z ad?�ege UP R A �. a EIR I ow O 3 6E 6 I�,las� 1 NEW O f U Q G - z z O O O LL F O z a a C Fin t — — — — — — _ — — — _ _ — — — J — — — -------------------------- — O f U Q G - z z O O O LL F O z a a C Fin t •a.Y t ,� t t I p E? i t p tF° �t6t v S i e� �5 �� ti :.3 Slvifjti • t t f i� i i j f F!� j t�'` � �; i¢ , dY t[ 1 } { }i r tIi?lit t; fit it i i {e� t dieiet Si f! lit ll.t t{flEt` Ia i i '� ! I i %F • a� Etc! ?E {``3 i S€ q it, leaR,Stid's . i6 [ !j I•t [; i%,= 9 !-- { ¢ eS g t Y -: isY- p^ I lib tt[ a .t1I! ?i ? ii 12 5 t t SI : ti .:, ?s : tg? ; "se ? of Si, : !! 1 ,:[ w Tr.; In 'i [�I�it[il lu[lti '1 ��ititl lu[lt1 yy ,� F .%f 2 a b *_ lag — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —L — — — — — — — — — — z 0 v m [t z z O O m O LL F z z a a [Insert List Name and Address of Local Government Unit Here]City of Chanhassen. 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Name of Applicant: Genevieve Bolling, Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Application Number," Type Property Type of Application (check one): ❑ Exemption Decision ® No Loss Decision ❑ Replacement Plan Decision ❑ Banking Plan Decision ❑ Wetland Type/Boundary Decision Date of Decision: August 12, 2003 Check One: ❑ Approved with conditions List of Addressees: [Landowner] Genevieve Bolling, Westwood Professional Services, Inc. [Members of Technical Evaluation Panel] Chip Hentges, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District Lynda Peterson, Board of Soil and Water Resources ❑ Denied [Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable)] Bob Obermeyer, Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District [Department of Natural Resources Regional Office] Julie Ekman, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Wetlands Coordinator @ Ecological Services Section 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155 Corp of Engineers Project Manager @ Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO -R, 190 Fifth Street East St_ Paul, MN 55101-1638 [Individual members of the public who requested a copy, summary only] (none) - Page 1 of 2 McAllister No Loss (April 2003) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard • P.O. Box 147 • Chanhassen, MN 55317 Name of Applicant: Ms. Genevive Bolling Project Location: Plowshares/McAllister Property Chanhassen MN 55317 (TI 16N R23W S9) Type of Application (check one): ❑ Exemption Decision ❑x No Loss Decision ❑ Replacement Plan Decision ❑ Banking Plan Decision Date of Decision: August 12, 2003 Findings and Conclusions The applicant submitted a no wetlands determination request for the above site, along with a description of the on-site conditions and supplementary site mapping information. The City agrees with the applicant's findings that there are no jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Title: Water Resources Coordinator Date: Z 2cp—� Dec.22. 2003 10:10AM v%09 C4�` 1946 ^ No -1943 P. 2/3 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN 55387 Phone: 952-442-5101 00 04nty swc, Pax: 952-442-5497 ht�l J/wmr<o.carver.me.us/SWCD/SWCD maln.html NWlon Swed% . ro pv%lde leadership in rnmsemvlon and teach stewardship of1he soil, "W, and related r awces Apough a balanced, coaperoeNe progmm that protecU, reseorvs, and [n�prover Rosa resourear. December 22, 2003 Robert Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed McAllister Parcel Development Mr. Generous: Thank you for sending a copy of the McAllister Parcel development to the S WCD office. Please review the following storm water, erosion, and sediment control comments and recommendations. Storm Water Beginning March 10, 2003 all developments disturbing I -acre or more or part of a contiguous development which will disturb more than 1 -acre require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Pollution Control Agency (PCA). The owner / operator of the proposed development must apply for and receive the NPDES permit prior to beginning construction activities. Any development disturbing more than I -acne and creating more than 1 -acre of impervious surface must also have permanent storm water treatment. It appears this is being done as the McAllister Parcel preliminary plan shows the storm water runoff being managed by a proposed storm water basin. For water quality purposes, it is recommended to construct the storm water basin as a two -cell basin, rather than a single cell, narrow, shallow basin. The two cell basin could consist of a berm constructed in the middle of the pond at an elevation of one foot below NWL (i.e. 997). The berm would encourage the first cell of the pond to retain more solids before the water flows into the second cell. Eventually, vegetation would grow on the berm and provide minimal additional treatment as well. The overland flow from lots 15 through 18 may need a slight berm to divert the water into the fust cell of the two -cell basin. In the General Grading and Drainage Notes it states "All construction shall conform tq local rules" and "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time". The construction must meet all state rules as well as local (i.e. NPDES permit). Additionally, the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations from the site while maintaining positive drainage. The AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY r.Un OYER Dec. 22 2003 10:11AM No -1943 P. 3/3 note "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time" should be amended to include verbiage pertaining to the sites' obligation to meet dewatering regulations according to NPDES. For further information check Part IV, Section D. I and 2 (page 15 of 26) of the NPDES Permit (MN R100001). Erosion Control 1. Riprap and geotextile fabric needs to be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. 2. No temporary mulch or seeding was mentioned in the erosion control notes. Temporary mulch and seed is needed within 7, 14, 21 days (depending upon slope) of final grade or if the area is going to remain exposed and fallow for those time &amen. Sediment Control 1. A light duty silt fence should be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. 2. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-duty mono -mono silt fence with 4 foot spacing of metal T -posts and 1" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. 3. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets must include daily street scraping and as - needed street sweeping (i.e, weekly sweeping). If there are any questions regarding this review please contact the SWCD office. Sincerely, Aaron Mlyne/k, CPESC-IT Urban Conservation Technician Building Inspections 5 Fax 952.2271190 � � CITY OF MEMORANDUM Phone: 952.227.1160 CHMIMSEN TO: Planning Commission 7700 Market Boulevard In order to apply the Bluff Creek Overlay District, the property would have to be Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 PO Box 147 FROM: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration DATE: September 30, 2003 Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 SUBJ: Discussion of Propine - Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax 952.2271190 Kroiss Development has a purchase agreement with Susan McAllister for the Engineering subject site (see map). The property is currently zoned A-2 and is guided for low Phone: 952.227.1160 density. The applicant would like to rezone the property to develop a twin home Fax: 952.227.1170 project. Under the land use guide, the only zoning options are RSF, R4 and PUD. In order to apply the Bluff Creek Overlay District, the property would have to be Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 zoned to a higher density. The applicant would like to discuss the proposal with Fax: 952.227.1110 the commission. Park A Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning A Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952 2271110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952 2271110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 16oiss Development W WH ST )HR ; m 5 The City of Chanhassen * A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Oq,01 Planning Commission Summary — March 2, 2004 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL -MEDIUM DENSITY; A CONDITIONAL REVIEW FOR AN 18 TOWNHOUSE PROJECT; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON 6 ACRES OF DEVELOPMENT. LLC. Public Present: Name Address Scott Bemas 6800 France Avenue South Susan McAllister 2930 West 781e Street Todd M. Simning 1851 Lake Drive West Ed Hasek Westwood Professional Services Brent Hislop 1851 Lake Drive West Nathan Franzen 1851 Lake Drive West Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked staff to explain how the applicant has greatly improved the plan, and the discrepancy between staff and the applicant's understanding of the primary zone line for Bluff Creek. Commissioners Tjomhom and Claybaugh asked for clarification regarding discussions that have taken place between staff and the applicant on the impact of loss of lots in this development. Commissioner Claybaugh asked staff to draw a parallel between the encroachment of the buildings and the encroachment of the storm water pond with respect to the placement near the bluff and location and function of the NURP pond. Commissioner Slagle asked for clarification on the trail and sidewalk circulation, and placement of the pond. Commissioner Feik asked for clarification related to canopy coverage and tree loss, and the feasibility of placing the NURP pond in the north. Commissioner Ullehaug had questions relating to zoning and the number of units allowable on the site. Chairman Sacchet asked how grading on the site went from 50 to 70 percent, clarification on the height of the retaining wall, and the primary zone boundary. Todd Simning with Plowshares outlined the changes and addressed issues raised in the previous Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Ullehaug clarified that the applicant was requesting the city to revisit the primary zone location. Commissioner Feik asked if losing the 3 lots was a deal breaker. Todd Simning stated 2 r Planning Commission Summary — March 2, 2004 absolutely. Commissioner Claybaugh asked the applicant to clarify the height of the retaining wall in the alternative plan versus the first plan. Commissioner Lillehaug stated his previous recommendation was to provide access to this site via Century Trail, since the City owns Outlot G. Tom Simning stated, after discussing it with his partner, they would do the development with 17 units instead of the proposed 18. Chairman Sacchet called the public hearing to order. Susan McAllister, the land owner at 2930 West 78a' Street asked for clarification on how the number of units is calculated and provided background information on how the primary zone was established. She disagrees with where the city is placing the 300 foot boundary. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. Commissioner Slagle asked staff to explain how the primary zone boundary was established. Commissioner Papke asked if there would have been any opportunity for Susan McAllister, before coming to the Planning Commission with this development, to somehow appeal the delineation of that boundary as it's documented. Commissioner Claybaugh asked staff to discuss the difference between delineating the primary zone and delineating a wetland. Commissioner Slagle felt the access into this site should be off Century Trail and suggesting tabling the item. Chairman Sacchet asked the applicant if they would be willing to give an extension to the time limit if this item were tabled. Todd Simning stated they needed to get dirt moving in May or it was a dead project. After further discussion the following motions were made. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the Land Use Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Medium Density. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny PUD#2003-3 rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Planned Unit Development -Residential, PUD -R. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2. Feik moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny preliminary plat for Highlands of Bluff Creek, plans prepared by Westwood Development Services Inc. dated 10/31/03, revised 12/05/03,12/17/03, and 2/03/04 All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny Conditional Use Permit #2003-10. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny Site Plan #2003-11, plans prepared by Westwood Professional 3 Planning Commission Summary —March 2, 2004 Services, Inc., dated December 17, 2003. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2. Chairman Sacchet stated the position of the Planning Commission recommending denial is because of disagreement on the primary zone placement. Not feeling it's within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction to move that around. There was a desire to see the issue of access from Century Trail and/or West 78`h Street studied further. They find it encouraging that the applicant expressed willingness to drop one of the units to the south in order to push the development away from the westerly edge to preserve a reasonable buffer to Highway 41 but felt they went in the opposite direction of the direction given prior to tabling, i.e. grading, tree loss. Commissioner Claybaugh stated his hopes that staff and City Council can either address the issues of concern aggressively or remove it from the table so there's not so many issues to cloud the judgment of the City Council. Commissioner Feik suggested that the City Forester be present at the City Council meeting to answer questions. Commissioner Slagle's reasoning for abstaining is sometimes the 60 day rule forces projects to be approved or denied and in some respects it's not given it's fair due, especially when you make recommendations and they don't come back the way you thought. Chairman Sacchet's reasoning for abstaining is he would like to see the parameters of the development defined more clearly to the point that the applicant could work within them and turn it around but since the applicant did not appear to be willing to extend the time frame, there was no other option but to send it forward to City Council. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE. THESE CHANGES AFFECT ARTICLES I THROUGH XXXI OF THE CHAPTER AND ARE INTENDED TO UPDATE AND CONSOLIDATE THE ENTIRE ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Sacchet asked the Paulsen's and Debbie Lloyd to move to the front and to interject in the discussion where they wanted. Bob Generous highlighted the proposed changes to the ordinance. Janet Paulsen asked for clarification on the definitions of hardship and undue hardship and the primary zone area in the watershed. Janet Paulsen, along with Debbie Lloyd stated their support for keeping the requirement that notices be mailed to all lakeshore owners. Commissioners discussed requirements for retaining walls under 4 feet and play house placement. Commissioner Papke suggested eliminating number 2 on page 28, Home Improvement Trade which limits the hours of operation and questioned the requirement for motel parking on page 30. There was discussion over the building pad requirement, whether to go with square footage or minimum width and depth. The Planning Commission decided to keep the 60 by 60 house pad requirement. Due to the fact that the meeting was over curfew, the public hearing will remain open and discussion will continue at the next Planning Commission meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Claybaugh noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 17, 2004 as presented. 1, Planning Commission Summary — January 6, 2004 U� '0\ REVIEW FOR AN 18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT; SITE PLAN REVIEW PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Public Present: Name Address Jeff Russell 7632 Arboretum Village Circle Mike Ryan 2595 Southern Court Todd Sinning Plowshares Development Ed Hasek, Westwood Professional Services Eden Prairie Brent Hiscox Plowshares Development Susan McAllister 2930 West 78h Street Scott Bemas, Edina Realty 6800 France Avenue So Holly Huber 2828 Coach Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Lillehaug asked staff to clarify the adjusted Bluff Creek Overlay District boundaries. He also stated he was uncomfortable with the number of conditions and now knowing what the final product would look like. He recommended the item be tabled. Chairman Sacchet stated in all fairness to the applicant and people attending the meeting, he would like to get public input before making that decision. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification on the tree canopy calculations, easements for storm sewer, and Bluff Creek primary zone setback requirements. Commissioner Slagle asked questions relating to road and trail connections. Commissioner Tjornhom asked how this plan related to the plan presented at an earlier work session, and if there were townhomes encroaching into the Bluff Creek setback area, the location of the storm pond and concerns with runoff into Bluff Creek. Commissioner Claybaugh asked for clarification on the recommendations from the Carver County Soil and Water letter. Chairman Sacchet had questions regarding the irregular boundary lines and height of the proposed retaining wall. The applicant, Todd Simning with Plowshares Development addressed the questions and concerns of the Planning Commission. He also reviewed the history and reasoning behind this proposal. Commissioner Slagle asked the applicant who the target audience is for this development and their plans for parks and trail connections. Commissioner Feik asked if the developer had considered moving the pond to the east of the property in the easement area. Planning Commission Summary — January 6, 2004 Commissioner Papke continued discussion on the location of the pond. Ed Hasek with Westwood Professional Services explained the landscape and tree plan as it related to the siting of the pond. Commissioner Claybaugh asked the applicant to explain what the benefit is for Chanhassen in exchange for enhanced flexibility. Commissioner Lillehaug asked the applicant to explain why they were asking for a 31 foot road as opposed to 26 foot, the height of the retaining wall, and access off West 78'" Street. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Mike Ryan, 2595 Southern Court expressed concerns about the density and setback from the Bluff Creek Overlay District, and preserving the old growth forest. Susan McAllister, the property owner, stated that a lot of the old growth trees have been hit by lightning so are not in the best of shape. She also stated that she would not be opposed to tabling the item with clear direction. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After discussion the following motion was made. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for Highlands of Bluff Creek, Plowshares Development at 2930 West 7801 Street in it's entirety. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE XXXI ENTITLED BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the term "building". Commissioner Feik asked how this amendment would have affected specific previous applications. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive stated she was in favor of leaving the ordinance as is because she supports having public input instead of leaving decisions up to city staff. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of amending the Bluff Creek Overlay District by adding the following: Section 20-1554. Conditional Use Permits. (b) All lots of record in existence and parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a building has been constructed prior to December 14, 1998 are exempt from requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Further subdivision of the property will require a conditional use permit and shall comply with the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Section 20-1564. Structure Setbacks. (b) On parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a building has been constructed prior to December 14,1998: PO Box 284 Excelsior, MN 55331 �i Phone: 952-474-3302 Fax 952-474-3993 �7zzz /3a3 (P , Cam a quo ; %sem — 9 3 dam— 7 7 pfd' r,4 0 /" - ) gra - 9 3 t' - /S -S -J (ev o iZIC) Op a,/seh Cy' auIs,6a r.1. e_dcc � �1 Ll-dt?r �,DYI.C,UIM S The applicant's site plan lays out the development in a logical manner and the houses have significant articulation. The only issue not addressed is how the individual buildings will be differentiated from one another. The applicant's narrative states that, "the use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection shall provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building." However, there is no specific plan submitted that will outline exactly how this "visual variety" will be achieved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. Additionally, the applicant should incorporate the use of different window treatments, e.g. shutters, window boxes, etc., and types, e.g. multi -paned, half round, dormers, etc., to assist in the individualization of the buildings. DITIZA — pvt QJ�odr esk ` v'ti Ulla^� Kp4oiss Develope-t& Townkomes INA. �le- ", - - W Westwood Kp&oiss DevelopeN Towhkome-s -4 Ag rte_ -.AL 4V e s i 4 ' 41 ! by 4t t� f 0. J W- or P" aw 4!114 N!l�M..TlS000 t F; +a di - �� .a '��111w.d.) � - w1}+►. Cid Westwood Pdemd kry k o m v'e:® 3p g .. ........ eove 5 mawlasull r. �f5 v K '':'.i+ � �. ^XA^ 5' E 5 5 .Ip#.. 4 -1�' 6 � q.- I . - S.xrL � 4 1 I -- � 6 ; � • r :- Y �� "F h•, 'p.��. � .:.[KQ~�lttAlV.� �3W� Y _y.._ _ M'� .. �- � x p ^ - .. .: YY12�Yti AGCXW.IL :llpy' jpI15 _ r '+� ��i!}Ii MI c iW��• 4 •5 r (1) a o' <y P 3 F t -.��t� ?.I � i:�@Irx'x� ;i:.'� a'�t- -ti✓ t � ! :.)^ 3�°'�,-z �-(' '4 ttr,:� Y Jw - 3�' �u"� i� �n:�:i O `y � 6 r ' - / • < 'wY'� • b!cfeI -?. J i' h� F r?'t G"z..a _-�:' :e xr a6 �M . d r ^5 J :.[ . sj}�`}a' ~�:- �t"s \y/®w X �,i�-aa•�a.c : _ _ �• 4 •t•'•A_t, A >4 4i� � � F-' i" a. ,�•{•xy x __ {.,�y, •�'�'t y _ � .!%�•`� '�y\.'�?f � >�''i4't..':.. Tr . ro r � t t ��:�j.,/"/ `pte3�� " r�� ' ;t` .r:R'fY. -� ,.:r _ •' -'.• .; $ 1 >z-.ir; -.3 `�l� `a b i _ Y / ':3 i y�.r Z/«., _ t> +'-" •Y: Y";t«- �'.:'�:-T k :l- •a. ..,.r43a•4P , Y�a:.w i t � ' - (a o-.YV' (a Ya .s'o• or%o'.i' s„ - cA r bx�. �& '. � z _ y M1 iG i•ulk--� �o ti '-. wxi' � . 9clwn ` twsN•n- r � pYiNtY � ,' -'� fir.. �«4 jr v •y "s•. +-: r� ^�..+y'� "ti - "f3r:>'y.;�".`.r:a- x t �p �• ';� n-.t---`a-j 4'. c ('�'. ' 1%-'�, 3.�. , � }i.-. -•'J3 a t- 'AF�. � n r-. �• x '� t xa(;-3,gwt u _ ' �3(�� o �:- � � r :. 2 ' ".. > .N1!f,v _ %y 4-R�.3i: 4!f a��u'm�'. �.%'�� y tTe 4f.. - i i j• ,•.. •,�.. •�' �, .q .. :..._,_ 'x( n a.�i ...t- as: - • qi + 3 ",;..- - � v - } �-. � /�`� ��' i°'- - .4.C�y:;A�.} �g?l: p xu .a-aa• _ � �-FAMR.Y • � yt 1 -5.' r.�r_- raF.. �� - SP}I iws �� - •i 1.t a. Froj' �w' s � � IZ'-5% s :� � w��.`sra'en � �� _- � � n ,,.'i,' .^.`,'� 4 �-'. � � � - � e, c �• �� ,> 1�4n r� �_ f� � �� s .. ::� �/_�/ / ��- + J \\ v ��au _ m , j s h �. K ��- 2 'p a/l3Ww�i+P4 'Y-e.., ��+•S �L-� :_p .>�t .�,� t Z. :. _ _ 5r" tT( ;,�V t_� �.�„w,.�r.. .-e x- a.:. ,bd', -' - s e --e+� Mc; l ' —, �INING� .•.� w ua Snyt. •..is••DINING '� ` YiA � ':� '_^J�_.. �('; ;.'.i't i. W I.C� - � ;:�wxr-r � - .1-, ;. ' 'WJ:G'✓. _JS�L�- } �,t a � _�^ (- >? p � � � �Y F:W9t�"l�4-tea 17 l..`.,5. _I^ .%t pl�� y��•l_ �r �{ � � ��FE a ....�} � +F .� i- a :� �i �[: � [�r f ': N :' ..�� r -: -.x"!•• ` " l,_5. m✓s ,ile/F y' C ,� x tJ"l? �"� >�. 0 � / I & � �✓ F 4A ! �_— �+'r - � fs;Y1 s!! 'f�' • ' � .W � - F.: GGG .. -'f t � o L _ — — � Q .'0 f j r3� a• `r a i _r ' t<. �_ y� 'r ¢�- a,.'� F (^f 5 �_ 7 S k it` - �� li R:. "-ifs � n a .fr - ,� _:a.. j;. s ,i' "'F'z- +r � C�` r:• o �y'.r _ � � .. a� a I z ..� f' i ' ,, `.,' � �� ( �, i ''' :'�"{ 'Ji/�,_Zr ..r ,~./ x r^.,,c. '.�� - :i"(:,; .� _ >m..re.� na'.'w .�n ",t £.,: .ts.-. �..:. �,� Y.r •� If , 1p�'ka- � .. � '�E>zi l,�• ..:. 1 ., :.> x ': ;:cC '(s=_�-...F; .... ..�, i-..'u':'. - .•, .: :'s; 1 v - � ' `.�.- '_. J : (� .. C.Y ,., ., ,.f 'r., ,. -.w �? try i- :s'.. •.. ,: �'. r' .+>. .3'r% ::: ,r._ /r 'vim( ,i;y rtt¢r e - .}�,: ..� z,t..k.- :: •. ._ ...wr n �..'o+l� 3�'e.'a-.. .a;,. ..- ,. „� �, �`- .. >;: •.,,. ': _:v -6',.; rRxer ,..4,�.: e";±%' j;'e a' - e,e'• - - yj7; t .� '+y« / 4� � I 1 e :,n'n-c.. r.,ro • � � i � -- � s.wv r cw evw. � =� - F. �� '• - -� ./>w x ".1 < r� • !f� _ �: i yGAI'AGE 'q(z. - P r .i `,z "*:: �`..yr. a i s ,/ o i �. �.,'zmra,wrs DINE7iE � o } — \ i v. �f� ac.•is � �' t3�'z z'" ° a `' I . ° U. rued .:�S • zn'v`we.�+wrs I PORCHIr POI rl (osP y it - •6 '-1" }~ a!¢a/•!,' 5 - I6 5. _ J' I6 5' Y I6' 5' a /T /Villnrt a FIR9ffl.0M PLAN .�% .:�'!: 6 4' 9' H._51.. 1.7 n 4 4• 4 6 50 M N'(Y �. ... ,. :x..'er o+a wn•,r _ - vnvaawriW i�tc!'w - arvmllwwwr rv��na - r attachpc� .�,t�� (!t {J c�nd eancc,c LeC� 1'+ � 00 O Z' m a V z�z 3_ � � m jr� Nm0 A r � - r D Z m �a �ijp c' 7i O� r e..6 2 i r oulevard 47 IN 55317 OF GEN ROBERT M & JILL R SOMERS 2839 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 553174433 III A:riri,,,llrrrlilt , III III t! III IIII :, lilt IAtlilt 11,ILf e Npn —11 n u r UHNQUIST 7701 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 11"11111 ills I1iit III if H)Ililt, still It 1 li DEBBRA C HILL 7640 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 ^ 17 4. 4 i 4 11111il11111111111111111111111111 ,LIf,i f„t,i,1if61,,,Mi MARYLJOHNSON 7633 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 SK:,;'i44i1 s; 111111111111111un1111111,111111111c.,ill1lur,fiu,it HIII 11 SCHMOLL 7617 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 +� 1 i• i%'t 11t11n1111et111tnlllenl 11111, sAll ism X111 I„ti1, 1,1111111 SSEN DAVID L BUSS & ERIN KAY STEINKE 7638 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 LL'I11i11111t11111111111f1L1LL1L1Lhf111111t11„L11111 EN p =�a�d ;5317 0 SEN 'N 0 4 BARBARA ANN MILLER 7661 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 MATTHEW J NARDO 7650 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 _ ,i4424...: _,. I,I,6,I,i,,,IL,,,111,,,LL _. ROBERTA J RONBECK & JOAN L RONBECK 2840 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 4420 1 III ,i 111 „Lil1,,,,6.11i,,,,i J, [ 1 SUSAN MCALLISTER 2930 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4501 # Susan McAllister June 17, 2003 Mr. Bob Generous Senior Planner City of Chanhassen P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 REOFI I n JUN 1 8 2003 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Dear Bob, With much regret I need to inform you that my life and personal circumstances have changed such that it is necessary for me to sell my property. I do greatly appreciate all that the city has done to accommodate Miss Rosie's Farm in the city of Chanhassen. While Miss Rosie's Farm will in all likelihood still be developed, it will need to be done at another location when I am able to care for my animals again. Please do as necessary to be open to potential buyer/developer proposals which request density transfer and lot size dimensions which accommodate development of my property. Thank you and your staff for all your help. I'll always remember with deep gratitude the literally hundreds of hours staff has given to allow a farm to do business in the city of Chanhassen. Best Personal Regards, Susan McAllister ROY L. ROESER NOTARY PUBUC-MINNESOTA CARTER COUNTY _An�n RARim Mn.,V, 200 '� � 2930 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317-4501 952-474-5099 0 • °,+-o i Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING )SS. CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT County of Carver ) DEVELOPMENT #2003-3 PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC/SUSAN MCALLISTER PROPERTY CITY OF Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized HEREBYCHANHGIVESSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- the Chanhassen Planning Commission will lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: January 6, 200u at 7:00 p. n. in the 6, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Council A These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal ( ) P 9 B 9 B Chambers in Chanhassen CityHall, 7700 rov? newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as Market Boulevard. The purpose of this amended hearing is to consider the request of Affidavit identified No. Plowshares Development, LLC/Susan McAlhsterfmaLmdUsePlan Amendment (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this and as was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said from Residential — Low Density to Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of Residential — Medium Density; a the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both Conditional Use Permit for development inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; and publication of the Notice: Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse abedefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz Project; Site Plan Review for an l8 -Unit O /J Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval u for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outiots; and ey: a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay Laurie A. Hartrnann District Setback Requirements on 6 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2; The property is located at Subscribed and sworn before me on 2930 West 78" Street (northeast comer of West 78i° Street & Highway 41). A plan showing the location of the is for review at q` proposal available public this p(o day of 2003 ------------- ---+�----City CityHall during regular business hours. tRfr < GWEN M. RADUENZ All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express # NOTARVPUBLIC MINNESOTA = MyCmmiss,w Expires Jan.st.2005 their opinions with respect to this ,p` proposal. Robert Generous, Senior Planner Notary Public Phone: 952-227-1131 (Publishedinthe Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, December25, 2003; No. 4055) RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $21.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $21.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $10.63 per column inch r� u NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT #2003-3 PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC/SUSAN MCALLISTER PROPERTY CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 6, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the request of Plowshares Development, LLC/Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential —Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback Requirements on 6 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2; The property is located at 2930 West 78th Street (northeast comer of West 78th Street & Highway 41). A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Robert Generous, Senior Planner Phone: 952-227-1131 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on December 25, 2003) 0 [911 '(1]w[el 64 F.WFINS1 I E AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on December 26, 2003, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for PUD 2003-3, located at 2930 West 78`s Street, Applicant Plowshares Development LLC and Susan McAllister, to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. K en J. E el ardt, D uty Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this, day of 2003. Notary Public gAengUbrms\aflidavit.doc 9TICE OF PUBLIC HEARIIG CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Planned Unit Development #2003-3 APPLICANT: Plowshares Development LLC Susan McAllister LOCATION: 2930 West 78th Street NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Plowshares Development LLP/ Susan McAllister, is requesting a Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback Requirements on 6 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. The property is located at 2930 West 78th Street (northeast corner of West 78th Street & Highway 41). What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicanPs request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and 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 227-1131 or e-mail bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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 December 25, 2003. 0 0 City Review Procedure Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. Staff prepares a report on the subject application. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. &Aplan\fo \review procedure 0 ALFONSO & CHRISTINE M CORREA 2828 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 ALLEN M ODEGARD 2841 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 ALLAN D FISCHER 7641 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 AMY E FISHER 2836 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 ARBORETUM VILLAGE COMMUNITY BARBARA ANN MILLER SUITE NORTHWEST PKY MN 55121- 7661 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN EAGAN M SUICHANHASSEN MN 553174425 BRENDA C BROWN 7634 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 BRYAN M FRITZ 2838 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 DALE C & KIM R HOWELL 7644 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 DAVID L BUSS & ERIN KAY STEINKE 7638 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 GARY & JENNIFER SANDQUIST 7711 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 HREIDAR & ELINOR A AGUSTSSON 2836 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 BRIAN K MOE 7700 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 BYRON A & MARY M OLSON 7331 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8038 DALE R & JEAN A RUSCH 2856 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 DEBBRA C HILL 7640 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 GUILLERMO E & JAMIE A ARIAS 7633 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 JACOB O CROOKS & MICHAEL A & RENATE E CROOKS 7450 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8037 ALLEN K JR & JENNIFER R LARSON 7647 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 AMYIBOEHM 7702 COACH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 BRANDON B WAGNER 7659 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 BRIAN W SHEPARD & NICHOLE M WHETSTINE 7636 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 CATHERINE A HOLTE 7630 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 DARRYL E COSTELLO PO BOX 34 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-0034 ERIK M JOHNSON PO BOX 545 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0545 HELEN R HUBER 2828 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434 JANET K OPHEIM 7704 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 JASON & JENNIFER VEUM JEFFRY KARL RUSSELL JENNIFER A VONESCHEN 7629 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR 7632 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR 7643 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 JOAN B DYGERT JOHN C SCHIELE & HOLLY J BENTZ JOHN F ALTENBERND 2824 CENTURY TRL 2848 CENTURY TRL 7639 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 JOHN M WIGEN KATHRYN ELLEN GRIEGER KEITH D TURNQUIST 7625 CENTURY CT 2923 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV 7701 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4423 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 KELLY A PEDERSON & JOHN H & KELLY KAY SCHUFT KIMBERLY B KOZAR JUDY A E 7702 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR 7629 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 CHA LARRY A & VIVIAN S NELSON LEAH L RUDNICKI & JACOB C & LEE A AMIOT & JENNIFER M 2832 CENTURY TRL BETH A RUDNICKI SCHMOLL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 2837 COACH CT 7617 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 LINDA LEE SIMON LISA A ALT MARY L JOHNSON 7706 COACH DR 7703 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR 7633 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 MATTHEW J NARDO MATTHEW L MAETZOLD & JILL K MERALD A & ELAINE A KROGSTAD 7650 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL WASHBURN 7460 HAZELTINE BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 7613 CENTURY CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8037 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 MICHAEL B HERMAN MICHAEL D & AMY L ARMBRUST MICHAEL D & JANICE M CHOCKLAN 2921 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV 7630 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT 7651 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4423 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 MICHAEL W SCHACHTERLE & MOLLY J LYSFJORD NANCY A GALLAGHER CRYSTAL E SCHACHTERLE 7652 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL 7705 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR 2852 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 NANCY JEAN LARSON PAUL J & KELLY K RAIMONDO PHILLIP A GROTHE 7704 COACH DR 7632 CENTURY CT 7628 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA CORP C/O REAL ESTATE OFFICE ROBERT M & JILL R SOMERS 815 NORTHWEST PKY 319 15TH AVE SE 2839 COACH CT SUITE 140 424 DON HOWE BLDG CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 EAGAN MN 55121-1580 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55455-0118 • ROBERTA J RONBECK & JOAN L RYAN C BROWN & SARA M RYAN E K 2840 C 7642 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL 2840 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 SHANNON M HOGAN SHAWN R KERRIGAN 7651 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN 7648 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 SHIRLEY A FORS STEVEN W RABY & MARY E 2820 CENTURY TRL FRASCZAK CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 7621 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 SUSAN MCALLISTER THERESA A LINN 2930 78TH ST W 7635 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4501 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 TRACY J DOHENY VICTOR D & KATHERINE T OATES 7634 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR 2832 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434 WESLEY A DAHLSTROM WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH 7637 CENTURY CT 7801 PARK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9200 WILLIAM E HART RICH SLAGLE 7653 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT R PASS & ELIZABETH D RAI N EY -PASS 2844 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 SHEILA K DEWOLF 2830 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434 SUMIKA CHAT 7649 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 THOMAS J SYLVESTER 7632 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 VINH Q DO NGUYEN 7657 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 WILLIAM A & IRENE V HINES 7631 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 0 Concept Planned Unit Development #2003-3 Public Hearing Notice Area (500 feet) � a 9 r o nadoo a R 'er— a/7 2930 West 78th Street r-= cc i r_ 8 E U Hi hwa 5 Arboretum Boule Fu ur S re Co Vk- u'- PJ n E- Rs ,q /✓& �Af,,r3- l4A fl -IL /hF- G As Sr ,,J E-,A�,-a / ; v r./ A\ 3 0 � �'vLLav�,rvj b orj C- ee- E- K ?P/,C-AIV 1S U VVT e- L l Z r�1 Ally p� fl S Jc i1Lr Np o r✓ Z3 L u.- A Mzn/ome NT / l�� 20rJ 13 J S,LX6 4'Ntl ; S ; ori Nci' er� k C o N 0. ' f2—DW SNAPS—& DEVELO PMcrv--, L L C CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: March 2, 2004 CC DATE: March 22, 2004 REVIEW DEADLINE: April 3, 2004 CASE #: 04-01 BY: RG, LH, TH, ML, IS, MS, ST PROPOSAL: Request for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development Within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback, Highlands of Bluff Creek. LOCATION: 2930 West 78`s Street Northeast corner of West 78t° Street and Trunk Highway 41 APPLICANT: Plowshares Development, LLC Susan McAllister 1851 Lake Drive West #550 2930 West 78"' Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 361-0832 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District and BCO, Bluff Creek Overlay District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density ACREAGE: 6.52 acres DENSITY: 2.76 units/acre gross; 3.18 units/acre net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant in proposing an 18 -unit townhouse project consisting of three two - unit structures and four three -unit structures. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUD's, and amendments to PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. LOCATION MAP Minnewashta Regional Park maa a� P^, ark 0�' McAllister Parcel z -T FM -1 0 p� ee Minnesota Landscape Arboretum r=�ba 6 0 W Boulevard State Hwy 5 Arboretum Soule 78TH vard -T Raw Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Chanhassen Nature Preserve /esely Cham atusery Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 2 of 19 PROPOSAUSUMMARY The applicant is proposing a site plan for an 18 -unit townhouse development, Highlands of Bluff Creek, consisting of three two -unit structures and four three -unit structures. Access to the lots would be via a private street which would be constructed to a 26 -foot wide pavement standard. There would be one access point onto West 78t° Street, located at the existing curb cut for the property. The request includes a land use map amendment to permit the density transfer within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, since the PUD ordinance currently does not permit density transfer in properties guided residential — low density; and a Planned Unit Development which permits the clustering of housing units; a subdivision with a variance request for the setback from the Bluff Creek primary zone; a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; and site plan review for an 18 -unit townhouse development. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on January 6, 2004 to present a plan, similar to the current plan. At that time, the Planning Commission tabled the item to permit the applicant to revise the plans to address the numerous conditions of the staff report, to investigate the possibility of relocating the storm water pond to the north side of the development, to size the pond appropriately, to review the retaining wall, to look at reducing or eliminating the retaining wall, to realign the sewer line and to include a trail connection. The applicant has greatly improved the plan; however, they are still proposing the encroachment in to the Bluff Creek primary zone. Even though they are proposing the expansion of the primary zone (approximately 4,700 square feet) in exchange for the area being removed (approximately 4,000 square feet), staff is opposed to any encroachment into the primary zone. The applicant has prepared a preliminary alternative site plan which relocated the pond to the north side of the site. However, both staff and the applicant agree that that alternative is a less desirable design which would impact the Bluff Creek primary zone more. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission in August 2003 to present a concept plan for the property. The concept plan included 24 units in three and four -unit structures. The Planning Commission was generally supportive of some type of townhouse project for the site, but with fewer units. As part of the submittal process, staff requested that the applicant prepare a sketch plan (sketch 1) to establish the capacity of the site based on a twin home development, ignoring the primary zone boundary, as outlined in the Bluff Creek Overlay District standards. The sketch plan established 18 units as the maximum potential development density of the site. However, such a plan does not assure that 18 units will be approved, since any proposed development would still need to comply with city code requirements. The applicant initially submitted a plan containing 19 units in three and four -unit structures (alternate plan 1). However, this plan ignored the primary zone boundary and proposed two access points onto West 78's Street. Staff rejected the plans. The next plan (alternate plan 2) shifted the development south on the site in recognition of the primary zone. However, alternate plan 2 did not incorporate two and three -unit structures similar to the development to the east. The applicant revised the plans to include two and three -unit buildings, Highlands of Bluff Creek, which is the proposal being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 3 of 19 On the south and east sides of the development is Arboretum Village which consists of townhouses. To the north of West 78'" Street, the townhouses are constructed as two, three and four -unit structures at a Net Density of 3.5 units per acre (137 units - 39 acres = 3.5). South of West 78s' Street the townhouses consist of four, six and eight -unit structures at a Net Density of 8.7 units per acre (242 units _ 27.8 acres = 8.7). The overall net density of the Arboretum Village development is 5.7 units per acre. The project abuts the headwaters of Bluff Creek. Approximately 30 percent of the site is located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone that includes the wooded area on the north side of the development which slopes down to the wetland complex north of the property. The proposed development encroaches into the primary zone by approximately 35 feet adjacent to Block 3 in exchange for expanding the primary zone by 40 feet in the area of the existing barn and corral. Additionally, the applicant has incorporated a planting plan within this area to help re - vegetate this area. However, the primary zone is intended to be preserved in its existing state and expanded and protected if possible. While staff supports the granting of a setback variance to permit a 20 -foot setback rather than a 40 -foot setback due to the site constraints even after reducing the pavements width, but expanding the pond, we do not support the encroachment into the primary zone itself. The applicant's site plan lays out the development in a logical manner and the houses have significant articulation. The only issue not addressed is how the individual buildings will be differentiated from one another. The applicant's narrative states that, "the use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection shall provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building." However, there is no specific plan submitted that will outline exactly how this "visual variety" will be achieved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. Additionally, the applicant should incorporate the use of different window treatments, e.g. shutters, window boxes, etc., and types, e.g. multi -paned, half round, dormers, etc., to assist in the individualization of the buildings. Staff is recommending that the land use plan amendment be approved contingent on final PUD development plan approval and Metropolitan Council approval, the concept and preliminary Planned Unit Development be approved, the preliminary plat be approved with a variance to the Bluff Creek setback subject to modifications to the plan and the appropriate conditions of approval, the conditional use permit be approved, and the site plan be approved. BACKGROUND On July 24, 2000, the City Council approved the applicant's request for a zoning ordinance amendment (ZOA #00-1) to allow petting farms as an interim use in the A-2, Agricultural Estate district. On July 24, 2000, the City Council also approved the applicant's request for an interim use permit (IUP #00-2) to operate a petting farm. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 4 of 19 In May 2001, the City approved Arboretum Village, a planned unit development located directly south and east of the applicant's property. As part of this development, an outlot was created to preserve the natural features. This outlot is south of a wetland and includes the wetland buffer area. This outlot abuts the applicant's property on the north and east sides. In 2001, the city undertook utility expansion in the BC -7 and BC -8 sewer subdistricts. This utility improvement brought sanitary sewer and water service from Galpin Boulevard to the west side of Highway 41. As part of the Arboretum Village 2nd Addition, the developer extended sanitary sewer service to the eastern property line of the site. As part of a state project on TH 41 that corresponded with the Arboretum Village development, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) required the southerly driveway access on the applicant's property to I-Iighway 41 be closed and relocated for safety reasons to West 78'" Street. On June 24, 2002, the Chanhassen City Council approved Conditional Use Permit #2000-3 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District for Miss Rosie's Farm and an amendment to Interim Use Permit #2000-2 to permit revision of the petting farm plan with a variance for the use of gravel driveways or grass pave system. On January 6, 2004, the project, Highlands of Bluff Creek, was tabled by the Planning Commission for additional refinement to the plan. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 6.5 acres from A2 to PUD -R, Planned Unit Development -R. The project consists of 18 townhouse units incorporated in three 2 -unit structures and four 3 -unit structures. The review criteria are taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD in this instance is to permit density clustering for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for an internal transfer of density. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. The proposed development provides a compatible development with the surrounding development and preserves the Bluff Creek corridor subject to the recommended modifications to the plan. The proposed amendment and rezoning assist in the furtherance of the following land use goals of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 5 of 19 The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing opportunities. The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between different uses of different types. Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. The proposed amendment and rezoning assist in the furtherance of the following housing goals of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: A balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life -cycle. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. Staff is proposing the following development standards govern the development of the property. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a townhouse development consisting of two and three -unit structures. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each building proposed for development shall comply with the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses Two and three -unit townhouse structures. Accessory Use (on Outlot B only) Gazebo Retaining Wall Maintenance Shed School Bus Shelter Picnic Shelter Sidewalks Project Identification Sign Street, Private C. Setbacks The following building setbacks shall apply Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 6 of 19 West 78h Street 50 ft. TH 41 50 ft. Perimeter of townhouse lot (front, rear and end) 10 ft. East Development Property Line 30 ft. Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A)20 ft., with the first 10 ft. as buffer d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height 1. The standard for hard surface coverage is 30% for the overall development. 2. The maximum building height shall be two stories/35 feet. e. Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Materials used shall be from the approved material pallet. 3. All exterior equipment shall be screened by walls or landscaping. E Site Landscaping and Screening 1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, shall be installed when the adjacent grading and construction is completed. 2. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. g. Signage 1. One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance on West 78`" Street. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. 2. Signage shall be comprised of individual dimensional letters and logos. h. Lighting Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 7 of 19 1. A shoe box fixture with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development for area lighting. 2. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. SUBDIVISION REVIEW The applicant is proposing an 18 -lot subdivision with two outlots and a private street BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The northern portion of the site is enveloped by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Primary Zone extends to the edge of the canopy/tree line. The plans should be revised to show the Primary Zone boundary as determined by City staff. City code requires that all structures maintain a 40 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 20 feet of the setback. Lot 2, Block 2; Lots 1-3, Block 3; and Lots 1-3, Block 4 do not meet the required 40 -foot setback and, in fact, several of the units encroach into the Primary Zone. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone must be preserved. Due to site constraints, staff recommends a variance that would allow a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary with no grading occurring within the first 10 feet of the setback. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The plans propose to grade about 70% of the site for the new 18 -unit townhouse pads, a proposed private driveway ending with a partial hammer -head turnaround and a stormwater pond. The proposed grading will prepare the site for lookout and walkout lots. Drainage swales have been proposed along the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. The plan proposes a 4 -foot retaining wall along the south side of the proposed storm pond. The existing site drainage runs off site from the southwesterly quarter of the parcel to the east and north toward Bluff Creek. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the drainage from the street, the front yards, the rear yards of Lots 7-18 and route the storm water to a proposed NURP pond in the southeasterly comer of the site. The applicant is proposing an outlet control structure to control the discharge of water from the proposed pond. The overflow water will be conveyed via storm sewer to an existing storm sewer, along the south side of West 78th Street, ending at a regional storm pond at the northwest quadrant of Century Boulevard and Highway 5. The amount of area that will still drain off site to the north toward Bluff Creek has been reduced. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for staff review. Staff has reviewed the calculations and found that only minor modifications are needed. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 8 of 19 the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. Storm Water Management CBMH-6 should have a two -foot sump since it is the last structure that is road accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond. The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Complete storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time." The note regarding positive drainage should be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. Easements A drainage and utility easement should be provided over the proposed storm water pond. Erosion and Sediment Control Riprap and geotextile fabric should be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be vaned before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy- duty mono -mono silt fence with 4 -foot spacing of metal T -posts and 1" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light-duty silt fence should also be installed between the townhomes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 9 of 19 Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area Steeper than 3:1 7 days is not actively being worked.) 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 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 facility. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on residential townhome development rates of $1,967/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 6 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $11,802. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Medium density townhome developments have a connection charge of $3,824 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $22,944 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for water quality if NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from off-site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $34,746. Other Agencies Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 10 of 19 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Century Trail; also water service is available from West 786' Street. The applicant is proposing to extend the sewer line along the private street to service the proposed lots from an existing stub on the southeast corner of the parcel. The watermain is proposed to be looped through the site from West 78th Street and connect with the existing water stub at the southeast corner of the property. A minimum 30 -foot wide public easement will be required over the public sewer and watermain. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. The assessments for the BC-7/BC-8 project were based on the existing zoning for the site with one residential unit. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (18) than what the property had been assessed for, the additional 17 units (18-1=17) will be charged the sanitary sewer and water assessment unit that was in place for the BC-7/BC-8 project. The sanitary sewer assessment unit for the BC-7/BC-8 project was $300 and the water assessment unit was $1,694 for a total per unit cost of $2,994. Based on these rates, the total amount due payable to the City for the additional 17 units will be $50,898 (17 @ 2,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. Hook-up charges are for core utility system infrastructure, i.e. wells, lift stations, water towers, etc. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District and MnDOT. STREETS The plan shows a full access off of West 78"' Street along the south side of the parcel. The applicant is proposing a 26 -foot wide private street with concrete curb and gutter and a partial hammer -head Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 11 of 19 turnaround. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshall. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design per City code. Lot Tabulation: Lot/Block Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.) Ll B1 3,960 46 86 L2 B1 3,103 36 86 L3 B1 3,960 46 86 Ll B2 3,914 39 86 L2 B2 3,903 38 86 Ll B3 3,944 44 86 L2 B3 3,103 36 86 L3 B3 3,960 46 86 Ll B4 3,960 46 86 L2 B4 3,103 36 86 L3 B4 3,960 46 86 Ll B5 3,960 46 86 L2 B5 3,960 46 86 Ll B6 3,960 46 86 L2 B6 3,960 46 86 Ll B7 3,960 46 86 L2 B7 3,103 36 86 L3 B7 3,960 46 86 Outlot A 74,561 # NA NA Outlot B 104,312 # NA NA TH 41 37,374 Total 284,007 # The outlot boundary shall be adjusted to correspond with the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary. The Planned Unit Development does not have minimum lot sizes. The overall density is 3.18 units per acre. PARKS AND RECREATION Staff has reviewed the Plowshares Development proposal for an 18 -unit townhouse project (McAllister Parcel) as it relates to the park and trail section of the city's comprehensive plan. This property lies within the park service area of the Bluff Creek Park Preserve. The preserve features expansive open space, natural areas, a five -acre open space/park area at the north end of Century Boulevard and a trail system; however, a public playground or ball field is not located within walking distance. A private Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 12 of 19 playground facility owned by the Arboretum Village Association is located just south of the McAllister property. A sidewalk connection to the city's comprehensive trail system is included for this groject. The nearest section of the trail system is located just to the south of the property along West 78 Street. The applicant is providing a trail connection along Highway 41 from West 78fl' Street to the northern property line which shall connect to a trail completing the Bluff Creek headwaters trail loop being constructed by the city this year. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the Highway 41 trail adjacent to the site. The applicant is eligible for reimbursement of the construction costs of said trail, including materials and labor, but excluding engineering, surveying, legal and all other associated costs. To be eligible for reimbursement from the city's trail fund the applicant shall submit construction plans and specifications and construction costs to the City 45 or more days prior to the start of construction for review and authorization. Assuming authorization to proceed is received and upon completion of construction, the applicant shall be eligible for reimbursement. Said construction shall be covered by warranties equal to or exceeding industry standards. It is recommended that the applicant pay park fees in lieu of land dedication on seventeen of the eighteen lots. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single family home on the property. The park fee will vary from $2,200 to $2,800 per unit, depending on the number of dwellings in each building. LANDSCAPING Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the McAllister parcel are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 6.52 ac. Baseline canopy coverage 42% or 2.75 ac. Minimum canopy coverage required 30% or 1.96 ac. Proposed tree preservation 28% or 1.81 ac. The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage .15 ac. Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement .18 ac. or 7,841 SF Total number of trees to be planted 8 trees The developer will be required to plant 8 trees as a part of reforestation in addition to one tree per home according to city ordinance. One tree shall be added in the northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 5. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 13 of 19 Buffer yard planting is required along West 78th Street, Highway 41 and the east property line. Although existing vegetation along the highway is proposed to be preserved, the developer is including additional landscaping in that area. Buffer yard requirements are as shown in the table: Landscaping Item Required Proposed Buffer yard B* — South property line, 440', 9 overstory trees 13 overstory trees buffer width 20' 13 understory trees 23 understorytrees 22 shrubs 12 shrubs Buffer yard B* — West property line, 250', 5 overstory trees 10 overstory trees buffer width 20' 8 understory trees 18 understory trees 13 shrubs 18 shrubs Buffer yard B* — East property line, 250', 5 overstory trees 2 overstory trees buffer width 20' 8 understory trees 13 understory trees 13 shrubs 16 shrubs Boulevard Trees — W. 78th St., 1 per 30' 15 overstory trees 13 overstory trees Applicant does not meet minimum requirements for the east buffer yard overstory plantings, boulevard plantings or south buffer yard shurbs The landscape plan shall be revised to show the minimum number of plantings required. The existing woods on the north side of the property consist of a large stand of maple -basswood forest, a type of native forest that is generally referred to as `Big Woods.' It is of good quality; there is sufficient regeneration of trees, only minimal amounts of buckthorn around the edges of the woods and minimally impacted by the existing use of the property. Staff recommends that these woods be preserved fully intact. The primary boundary line should run parallel to the edge of the woods. Preservation of this area would also help greatly in meeting canopy coverage requirements for the site and eliminate the need for reforestation plantings. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The development proposes a total of 18 townhouse units consisting of three two -unit structures and four three -unit structures. The proposal includes single -level townhomes with walkouts or basements. Access to the lots would be via a private street which would be constructed to a 26 -foot wide pavement. The site plan proposed preserving the majority of the trees within the northern portion of the property. Additionally, trees shall be preserved along Highway 41. The applicant's site plan lays out the development in a logical manner and the houses have significant articulation. The only issue not addressed is how the individual buildings will be differentiated from one another. The applicant's narrative states that, "the use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection shall provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building." However, there is no specific plan submitted that will outline exactly how this "visual variety" will be achieved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 14 of 19 create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. Additionally, the applicant should incorporate the use of different window treatments, e.g. shutters, window boxes, etc., and types, e.g. multi -paned, half round, dormers, etc., to assist in the individualization of the buildings. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following five motions and adoption of the attached findings of fact and recommendation: A. "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Land Use Amendment from Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density contingent upon final development approval of the Planned Unit Development and Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Land Use Amendment. B. "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council conceptual and preliminary approval of PUD #2003-3 rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development —Residential, PUD -R." C. "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council Preliminary Plat approval of the proposed development for Highlands of Bluff Creek with a variance (Variance #2003-19) to permit a 20 foot setback from the Bluff Creek Primary Zone, plans prepared by Westwood Development Services, Inc., dated 10/31/03, revised 12/05/03, 12/17/03 and 02/03/04, subject to the following conditions. 1. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3 of the,preliminary plat shall be eliminated to comply with the 20 -foot Bluff Creek primary zone setback requirement. 2. The property line between Outlots A and B shall follow the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary. 3. Final Plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to West 78's Street. 4. The applicant shall submit association covenants to the city for review prior to recording. The association shall be responsible for the maintenance of any common elements of the development. 5. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication on seventeen of the eighteen lots based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single-family home on the property. The park fee, using 2004 park fees, will vary from $2,200 to $2,800 per unit, depending on the number of dwellings in each building, which shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 15 of 19 6. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the Highway 41 trail. The applicant is eligible for reimbursement of the construction costs of said trail, including materials and labor, but excluding engineering, surveying, legal and all other associated costs. To be eligible for reimbursement from the city's trail fund, the applicant shall submit construction plans and specifications and construction costs to the City 45 or more days prior to the start of construction for review and authorization. Assuming authorization to proceed is received and upon completion of construction, the applicant shall be eligible for reimbursement. Said construction shall be covered by warranties equal to or exceeding industry standards. The developer does not meet minimum requirements for the east buffer yard overstory plantings, boulevard plantings or south buffer yard shrubs. One tree shall be added in the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 5. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the minimum number of plantings required. 8. The Development Design Standards shall be incorporated in the development contract. 9. All structures shall maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. 10. Roof drainage and sump pump systems for houses adjacent to the Bluff Creek Primary Zone shall be directed to the draintile behind the street curb. 11. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). Outlot A may be dedicated to the city to be preserved as open space. 12. The plans shall be revised to show the actual Primary Zone boundary as determined by City staff. 13. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 14. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The applicant must submit storm sewer sizing calculations for staff review. 15. Staff recommends that Type H silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and Type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. The silt fence shall be removed once the site has been revegetated. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 16 of 19 16. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat. 17. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 18. The total amount due payable to the City for the additional 17 units will be $50,898 (17 @ $2,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. 19. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. 20. The applicant must be aware that the public sewer and watermain require a preconstruction meeting before the building permit issuance. 21. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc. 22. Add the following City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2109, 2201, 3101, 3104, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300 and 5301. 23. Add a stop sign at the exit side of the access. 24. Add a street light at the access. 25. On the utility plan: a. Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. b. Removeldelete the last note. c. Call out water -main fittings. d. Show sanitary sewer pipe class & slope and watermain pipe class. e. Watermain shall be 8" PVC C-900 pipe. 26. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 17 of 19 b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Last storm manhole discharging to the pond must be a 3 -foot sump. 27. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. 28. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshall. 29. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design. 30. CBMH-6 shall have a two -foot sump since it is the last structure that is road accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond. 31. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Complete storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. 32. The note regarding positive drainage shall be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. 33. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over the proposed storm water pond. 34. Riprap and geotextile fabric shall be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. 35. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light duty silt fence shall be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. 36. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 37. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Tylie of SloDe Stabilized within Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 38. 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, Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 18 of 19 storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 39. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 40. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $34,746. 41. 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. D. "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2003-10 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. The development must comply with the approved Planned Unit Development and Subdivision requirements for the property. 2. All structures shall maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. 3. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). E. "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2003-11, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated December 17, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The applicant shall work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. 3. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the minimum number of plantings required for each of the buffer yards. 4. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the minimum number of boulevard trees required along West 78th Street. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 19 of 19 5. The applicant shall submit a foundation planting plan for city review and approval prior to final plat approval. 6. The applicant shall plant six trees on the site to meet reforestation requirements. 7. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 square feet in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement, property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 8. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire -resistive construction. 9. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 10. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Development Review Application 3. Memorandum from Ed Hasek to Bob Generous dated 2/3/04 4. Reduced Copy Existing Conditions 5. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat 6. Reduced Copy Preliminary Utility Plan 7. Reduced Copy Preliminary Grading & Erosion Control Plan 8. Reduced Copy Preliminary Landscape Plan 9. Reduced Copy Preliminary Tree Inventory & Preservation Plan 10. Reduced Copy Preliminary Alternate Site Plan 11. Picture Townhouse Structure Right Front 12. Picture Townhouse Structure Left Front 13. Picture Townhouse Rear 14. Concept Plan 15. Sketch 1 16. Alternate Plan 1 17. Alternate Plan 2 18. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat Jan. 6, 2004 19. Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision 20. Letter from Aaron Mlynek to Robert Generous dated 12/22/03 21. Letter from Susan McAllister to Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission dated 2/23/04 22. Letter from Brigid Gombold to Sharmeen Al-Jaff dated 01/13/04 23. Planning Commission Minutes of January 6, 2004 24. Affidavit of Mailing Notice CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review. On January 6, 2004 and March 2, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development — Residential rezoning (PUD -R) for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A. 4. Land Use Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. C) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: a) The proposed development preserves desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including mature trees, creeks and wetlands. b) The proposed development is a more efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through the clustering of the development on the site and the use of a private street. C) The proposed development is a high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. d) The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. e) The proposed development is Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. f) The proposed development preserves the Bluff Creek Corridor primary zone. g) The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not affordable housing. h) The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use of the clustering of buildings. i) The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. 6. Subdivision a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance subject to approval of the variance and revisions as recommended in the staff report. b) The subdivision meets all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. c) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan. d) 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. e) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter. f) The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage. g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will dedicate all appropriate new easements. h) The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are available or will be constructed with the development. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: (1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. (2) Lack of adequate roads. (3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. (4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: a) The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b) The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c) The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d) The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e) The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f) The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g) The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h) The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i) The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j) The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k) The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. 0 1) The proposed development meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback variance. 8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to develop the site and preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The site constraints of the primary zone and West 78`s Street lead to the need for a variance. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with surrounding development. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but is due to site constraints. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a) The proposed development is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements; c) The proposed development preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable subject to the revisions of the staff report by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developments or developing areas; d) The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space subject to the revisions recommended in the staff report with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: (1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; (2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; (3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and (4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 10. The planning report #04-01 dated March 2, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development — Residential rezoning (PUD -R) for an 15 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 15 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 15 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback subject to the recommendations contained in the staff report. ADOPTM by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this rd day of March, CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION I3V Uh Sacchet, Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: i� S�.�c] 1�✓s�s+....�ILLL OWNER: Sos— �^e-AWx\z, ADDRESS: 1551 e4 ss0 ADDRESS: Zg3e W• -+S,r:. %�. C�--�•-.�s,— 1.n +D 5531' TELEPHONE (Daytime) SL • 3 L 1 • a3 2 TELEPHONE: 451- 0-4 So99 Comprehensive Plan Amendment —Temporary Sales Permit W✓ lv W\GO�`J•1 lkl 0 �C Conditional Use Permit b c o N:�. t _ Vacation of ROW/Easements 4LS Interim Use Permit Y% Variance 11010 P.t�•.� -r- S-A" Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit X Planned Unit Development* t -+510 t _ Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review X Notification Sign t%1- '5�1" X Site Plan Review- 3 to d .r 1 bid's • X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost*' t so ee$ ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision' R IS :"✓ TOTAL FEE$ 3 � z4957 %x6 A list of all prop" owners w--ithi-n' rfeet of the boundpries of the pro rty must be included with tthe application•�i� '� •IV t�) Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/:" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DE: TOTALACREAGF (O.rJZ, WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST TO YES) NO- C e This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompaniecPq all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either - copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or 1 am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 6o day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120- days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signature of replicant Signatu of Fee Owner Application Received on Fee Paid Io 1:31 Io3 Date /D 3/ p3 Date Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will he available on Friday prior to the meeting. B not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. PLANNING. ENGINEERING• SURVEYING MEMORANDUM To: Bob Generous, Planner, City of Chanhassen From: Ed Hasek Date: February 3, 2004 Plowshares - Highlands of Re: Bluff Creek CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 0 3 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Project No.: 20032566 W 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: 952-937-5150 Fax 952-937-5822 Toll free: 1.88&937-5150 E-mail: wps®weriwoodps.Imm ILIL�J�iI:T•. ST. CLOUD 8MINEM On behalf of Plowshares Development LLC we are pleased to resubmit our application for the development of the Highlands of Bluff Creek as a residential townhome neighborhood. With this application we are requesting approval for a comprehensive plan amendment, PUD, site plan review, CUP, subdivision, and variance for the construction of a private street and 18 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of land that includes two small parcels currently owned by the City (.34 ac.), and Pulte Homes (.10 ac.). The parcel is located in the northeast corner of Highway 41 and West 78th Street. EXISTING CONDITIONS A hobby farm that includes a home, barn, and several out buildings currently occupies the property. With the construction of West 781h Street access was change from Highway 41 to a curb cut on 781h Street. The property lies within the HC -2 Overlay District, and partially within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The approximate BCOD boundaries (primary and secondary) have been located both on the plans and in the field. These boundaries have been adjusted as directed by staff, and approximately 30% of the site is currently within the BCOD primary zone. Roughly 42% of the site is covered by the canopy of trees that include oak, maple, basswood, elm, pine and spruce species, the majority of which are located on the north half of the property that slopes to the north and to Bluff Creek. A tree survey has been completed, and 106 significant trees were located and tagged. Field notes indicate that 14% of the significant trees are diseased or damaged, which is not unusual for a mature oak -maple -basswood woodland. Soils found on the property are generally loamy and of the Kilkenny -Lester soils series, well drained, 0 to 10% slopes, and suited to typical residential construction practices. Slopes ranging to 40 % exist along the west and south edges of the site as back -slopes down to the roadways created when Highway 41 and West 78" Street were constructed. The property drains in all directions from a high point of elevation 1011 feet located just west of the existing home. The south two-thirds of the site is generally flat and sits 2 to 8 feet above 78th Street. Public utilities are available to the property from West 781h Street and Century Trail. A regional storm pond is located to the southeast and along Highway 5 at Century Boulevard. The Arboretum Village subdivision (zoned PUDR) abuts the parcel on the south (6 -unit structures) and east (2, 3, and 4 unit townhomes) sides. Highway 41 separates the site from a single-family home to the west, and Bluff Creek is located to the north. Designing the Future Today. -since 1972 Page 2 of 3 February 3, 2004 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Since last meeting with the commission in early January we have met with City staff on several occasions at all levels to review the list of conditions attached to the staff comments on the previous application. The plan now reflects revisions to resolve issues as identified in those meetings. It was also agreed that a number of comments will still remain and will be addressed with our application for Final Plat. Plowshares Development LLC is proposing the development of 18 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of property to a density of 3.18 units per acre. Buildings will vary from 2 to 3 homes in size, and will have lookout, or walkout basements. Each home is of single story construction with a full basement and approximately 2,700 s.f. of living area possible. Attached 2 car garages are 480 s.f. in area. The site will be accessed by a single 26 -foot back-to-back private street built to City standards with a 5 - foot wide sidewalk located on one side of the street (adjacent to the curb). Each home will have a two -car garage, and guest parking (2.5 spaces per home) will be provided in the driveways and on one side of the private street. A 6 -foot sidewalk will also be constructed along West 7e Street to link Century Trail to a new trail now included along Highway 41, and the Bluff Creek trail system. Storm water that is collected from impervious surfaces (approximately 1.5 acres) will be routed to a pond designed to City standards located in the southeast corner of the site. Project utilities will connect to existing stubs in 78th Street and Century Trail. Each home will be individually connected to all utilities. Approximately 34% (.94 ac.) of the existing tree canopy will be removed for the construction of roads, driveways, homes, trail system, and associated grading. Outlot A (proposed as the Primary BCOD Zone in the north part of the property) will be preserved by a Conservation Easement or dedication to the City. Care will be taken to preserve additional trees and associated tree canopy at the time of construction. A small area of existing trees and canopy (and associated topography) along Highway 41 will also be preserved to provide separation and screening from this arterial roadway. Best Management Practices, and the standards and specifications established in the City Ordinances will be adhered to to reduce any additional tree losses. As indicated previously, the north portion of the site will be preserved in the BCOD. A variance to allow construction to 20 feet from the primary zone is requested in order to place as much of the site in the BCOD as possible. The proposed BCOD will preserve the most native and significant area of woodlands and slope on the site. Approximately 7,000 s.f. of the primary zone will be removed, and 2,600 s.f. of area will be added back. 8,700 s.f. of tree canopy will be reestablished within the primary zone with health native overstory tree species. Landscaping will be concentrated as screening along Highway 41 and West 78'h Street, and as a buffer along the east property line. A street tree planting scheme has been added to the private street frontage, and foundation plantings will provide additional landscape interest and detailing at the entry and front facade of each home. We have provided staff with the necessary sketch development plan (meeting all of the ordinance requirements) to support the construction of 18 homes on this site. The sketch plan yielded an average of 11,400 s.f. per unit and included a pubic cul-de-sac. While the development is proposed to be platted as townhomes with small lots around each home, the average area per unit for the proposed plan is 12,500 s.f. per home with a private street built to city standards. Designing the future today... M I N N E A P O L I S S T. C L O U D Page 3 of 3 February 3, 2004 The proposed 2 and 3 unit buildings are consistent with surrounding development (2, 3, 4, and 6 unit buildings) in Arboretum Village, and provide a reasonable transition of land use and density adjacent to Highway 41. The inclusion of three unit buildings also provides an interior unit at a slightly different price point than the end units. The front entry/porch is recessed from the front of the building by 6 to 8 feet to break up the front facade, and a porch and deck at the rear of each home provides 10 feet of relief along the back wall of the structures. The use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection will provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building. Each building will vary from those abutting it, and no two abutting buildings will look the same. The requirements for stone water ponding, and associated requirements for floor elevations above anticipated water levels, dictates that the buildings on this site be kept relatively high. The pond is located along West 78h, preserving the greatest amount of tree canopy, and will outlet to the regional pond along Highway 5. STAFF REVIEW As previously mentioned, we have met with staff to address the list of conditions prepared for their last review, and have addressed those issues pertaining specifically to the preliminary application as directed. Also, and at the direction of City staff, we have prepared an Alternate Site Pan that considers the possibility of locating the pond to the north and within the BCOD (moving the housing south to the minimum 50 -foot setback line). We have met with, or received review comments from all departments of staff, and find that there is both support and concern for each development alternative. Storm water wants to flow naturally to the north, but if the pond were to be constructed in the BCOD, an additional .25 - acre of tree canopy and 6 surveyed significant trees would be lost, and a discharge pipe would have to be installed through the trees and north to Bluff Creek. Because this property is not under developer control a tree survey was not conducted in this area. Additional trees may need to be removed due to the installation of the storm water discharge pipe. We feel the best solution for the development of this property to be the plan as proposed with the creation of new woodlands and canopy in the BCOD. The plan as proposed also allows the greatest separation of homes from West 78th Street, and reduces the amount of infrastructure necessary to construct the project. We appreciate the opportunity that we have had in working with City planning, engineering, and other staff to bring this project forward again for your review. We have had occasion to meet with the various departments to identify and work through a number of issues, and have responded by continuing to refine and rework the development plans for this revised application. We are extremely excited about this project and look forward to working with the City of Chanhassen and it staff toward the successful completion of the Highlands of Bluff Creek. Designing the future today... MIN N EAPOLIS S T. C L O U D Ali IIH is Soe•a a.e.eee.. ! �- fob Ld / 11N N / � M1 / • Z5 f- 6 n N d 3 M E / ---------------------------- 15] 1. 9V.0I1 CpAi/[I/21 Epp IOd/S94CWc,6p, cq5 v(0o2.d 888e8 g+ s��,S3I�Y �i Bea �zaa� _ytl�3FngOxR_ Q Y F3t c 10 1SJ ua C2 EIIC tCO2 /C er 20 O U 7 Q F z O a IC O LL I- 0 O Z a` e Z W N = W z> =w U W LC OC H U V O a CID O M W U_ R E. 2p i� 10 1SJ ua C2 EIIC tCO2 /C er 20 O U 7 Q F z O a IC O LL I- 0 O Z a` e Z W N = W z> =w U W LC OC H U V O a CID O M W U_ ! ! ! 9u \\ xe k 2 : ' y &! , , ¥� ` < | �\©- �� ` \ U * `� � » � �� »^ ■ � � �. � ` •�-,�, . .z L--------------- § � EJ i§ ,& � 1. � ` < | �\©- �� EJ i§ ,& � 1. � ` < �\©- �� . .z L--------------- sir z E, / I r � I / I IF 5 �9€ � ■� :g'gip�pe�i g�� Via � a3 &fig a P o � k -�� §MR ia11 ,i yip@ -e FF"Fa�g'F �icFe€a'65e a i-3 n fJ fir`, � w w � pis Ur N z> a a 4w / z w w Occ W n fJ u� we oouxo raozim.aa e•f ioea�nxooz�e.o�vsszfooz�e a a fir`, � w w � pis Ur N z> ca a 4w 0 z w w Occ W (7 ti.•Mai U u� we oouxo raozim.aa e•f ioea�nxooz�e.o�vsszfooz�e a a a � w w � z Q Q N z> ca a 4w 0 z w w Occ W (7 U E Ea EE pp i t # t t P E P til iti# ffftI# Z (' tiPPP#Et fii#[jE1 ! s j1 t# zf i Jill 5 a 3# m O y N Ell V �a� ''M SIS st Z 0 r ccv cc r Z 0 0 C 0 LL r O Z a a oil 0 II Ej iso ea n¢zm .00zimiza e•vmeu=?sxooz�e•as�sxmoz�e - a s$z; d L I Wig L OF 11111011 lillam l IIU'W 111jol b FIE. I I I I I I I r ail ----------------- - - - - -- ----- Q n� w w v o a� o z iw Z'- CI' g W C a UU Z W w b N 0� W 4 LL Z 0 a U yyy3Y a�p6p d�9 a z e MA,�G�Ea A = UP I ,y �tHANv .e r � €e � sPR ° G i u gE KkR�6��3sg�o � rig, F i ---- - - - - ------ w xv I' .wz/ovm e.e ioeooexzceez�F a�=vstt a W w1h O O TD = W Pi S W a r) U z OCC m >w U = U r _ ��,-, y �� 8 4 gg g I Eli 'd 8�9 3 C 9�SE"a IMIMI i 0...•{ri<.®®.#sae... e....H a V44 A C c \ o •7 � ry z ��rr0.iW /r i � ►ate Ty �� w �' • '` VM MIT \ TA FIN 10 �R `^ `fear ------------------L--- --- -------� — A N -o► -fes PG4.., 1 6 ii4:t g'�. j•V5i x a RS'ae� Sw�Ti �i','�RRa 0 d !j! O baa"i�'e3J�f �ll5a: • a z HIM ,a +I J �I 111:= e+� / /- '------------L--------------- I ■b! E .� I n I = \ J e+� / /- '------------L--------------- �4 E F_ F�j�a j,e4 psFg Ib •`LY ��ZC fF�'s €��iP5 fg�s:5 6 � F /�awYn 4 / / [Insert List Name and Address of Local Government Unit Here]City of Chanh`asseti 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Naive of Applicant: Genevieve Bolling Westwood Professional Services, Inc. V} Application NumbeJ ' OZz � �tiy t Type of Application (check one): ❑ Exemption Decision ® No Loss Decision ❑ Replacement Plan Decision ❑ Banking Plan Decision ❑ Wetland Type/Boundary Decision Date of Decision: August 12, 2003 Check One: ❑ Approved with conditions List of Addressees: [Landowner] Genevieve Bolling, Westwood Professional Services, Inc. [Members of Technical Evaluation Panel] Chip Hentges, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District Lynda Peterson, Board of Soil and Water Resources ❑ Denied [Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (if Applicable)] Bob Obermeyer, Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District [Department of Natural Resources Regional Office] Julie Ekman, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Wetlands Coordinator @ Ecological Services Section 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155 Corp of Engineers Project Manager @ Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO -R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 [Individual members of the public who requested a copy, summary only] (none) - Page I of 2 McAllister No Loss (April 2003) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard • P.O. Box 147 • Chanhassen, MN 55317 Name of Applicant: Ms. Genevive Bolling Project Location: Plowshares/McAllister Property Chanhassen MN 55317 fT116N R23W S9) Type of Application (check one): ❑ Exemption Decision El No Loss Decision ❑ Replacement Plan Decision ❑ Banking Plan Decision Date of Decision: August 12, 2003 Findings and Conclusions The applicant submitted a no wetlands determination request for the above site, along with a description of the on-site conditions and supplementary site mapping information. The City agrees with the applicant's findings that there are no jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property. CITY OF CHANHASSEN B Tide: Wa[er Resources Coordinator Date: Z 2e -0-s Dec -22. 2003 10:10AM No. 1943 P. 2/3 ,in9 Ca^ 219 East Frontage Road 2� Waconia, MN 55387 1946 " Phone: 952-442-5101 m Fax: 952-442-5497 o411ty S-,'.%4 htto//www orirverw eISwCDrsWCD s��it A/pstae SmtVn To provWe Ieade shlp bt Cori¢ IoAand teach stewardship ofihe soil, water, and retatedresow:es through a balanced, cooperoeme program Thal proL", ratorv, and Improves rhose.r�wroea. December 22, 2003 Robert Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed McAllister Parcel Development Mr. Generous: Thank you for sending a copy of the McAllister Parcel development to the SWCD office. Please review the following storm water, erosion, and sediment control comments and recommendations. Storm Water Beginning March 10, 2003 all developments disturbing I -acre or more or part of a contiguous development which will disturb more than 1 -acre require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Pollution Control Agency (PCA). The owner / operator of the proposed development must apply for and receive the NPDES permit prior to beginning construction activities. Any development disturbing more than I -acre and creating more than 1 -acre of impervious surface must also have permanent storm water treatment. It appears this is being done as the McAllister Parcel preliminary plan shows the storm water runoff being managed by a proposed storm water basin. For water quality purposes, it is recommended to construct the storm water basin as a two -cell basin, rather than a single cell, narrow, shallow basica. The two cell basin could consist of a berm constructed in the middle of the pond at an elevation of one foot below NWL (i.e. 997). The berm would encourage the first cell of the pond to retain more solids before the water flows into the second cell. Eventually, vegetation would grow on the berm and provide minimal additional treatment as well, The overland flow from lots 15 through 18 may need a slight berm to divert the water into the first cell of the two -cell basin. In the General Grading and Drainage Notes it states "All construction shall conform to local rules" and "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time". The constiuction must meet all state rules as well as local (i.e. NPDES permit). Additionally, the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations from the site while maintaining positive drainage. The AN RQUAL O"QR?'UNnT Lbrtr.( YM Dec 22. 2003 10 11AM No.1943 P. 3/3 note "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time" should be amended to include verbiage pertaining to the sites' obligation to meet dewatering regulations according to NPDES. For further information check Part IV, Section D. 1 and 2 (page 15 of 26) of the NPDES Permit (MN R100001). Erosion Control I . Riprap and geotextile fabric needs to be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. 2. No temporary mulch or seeding was mentioned in the erosion control notes. Temporary mulch and seed is needed within 7, 14, 21 days (depending upon slope) of final grade or if the area is going to remain exposed and fallow for those time &amts. Sediment Control I. A light duty silt fence should be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. 2. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-duty mono -mono silt fence with 4 foot spacing of metal T -posts and 1" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. 3. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets must include daily street scraping and as - needed street sweeping (i.e. weekly sweeping). If there are any questions regarding this review please contact the SWCD office. Si nceTely, Aaron N lyre/k, CPESC-IT Urban Conservation Technician February 23, 2004 Honorable Mayor Thomas Furlong, Members of the City Council, Planning Commission Members, City of Chanhassen, 7700 Market Blvd., Chanhassen, MN 55317 Susan McAllister Hand Delivered CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 2 3 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT In 1995 when I became a member of the Steering Committee for the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan Draft I was told by Kate Aanenson, Planning Director, that she didn't think there was any Primary Zone on my property then in the same breath she corrected herself by stating she thought just the upper comer of my property was in the Primary Zone. Magically, as years have passed now I find the city saying half of my property lies in the Primary Zone. How is it that I have become burdened for protection of such a large area of the Primary Zone? I felt my property was going to become a good target for allowing the Primary Zone to fall on half of my property because from its conception in 1994 the city was already well aware that my intent was never to develop my site. I actually came up with a very nice way to keep it green and at the same time make the concept into a business, Miss Rosie's Farm®. So when the Bluff Creek Ordinance was at the public hearing stage even if 1 had wanted to oppose the amount of Primary Zone that ultimately ended up on my property, it would have been a futile effort on my part because of my well known intent to use the land for a farm and my passion for wanting to protect every tree on the site. Actually there had been more than one reference made regarding my land as being "ear marked" for a park when Pulte was in their development stage. I was actually given a heads up warning to be aware of this from someone inside city hall. In the city's mind they probably felt some comfort in assuming there was a good possibility that 1 would someday even donate my property to the city after I had quit using it as a petting farm. I now feel that when it would have come time to reapply for my interim use permit, the city would have made acquiring my land part of the trade off for my extension request. Unfortunately, last year as many of you are aware, I was a victim of a serious car accident that changed every aspect of my life within seconds. I was going to make a living by naming a farm in the city but as a result of the accident I need to develop the property in order to realize its economic value. I have had to change the management of my land from being the passionate preservationist to becoming a developer — overnight. I can honestly say this has been the hardest thing I've ever had to do. I see my land as holding the potential of much needed value for me. I have worked hard for it and have personally sacrificed for it. I expect the city to allow me to get a fav market price for it. In 1999 when Pulte intended to develop the land around my farmstead I supported their development plan for the good of my community. I could have been a thorn in your sides but I felt I needed to act responsibly. In fact, I remember standing before you on December 5, 2000 at Pulte's Arboretum Village public hearing asking you to "allow development to happen in a big way", "to allow the developer and the city to have what we so much needed — housing". I ask that you allow the same precedence that was given Pulte to be applied to this plan. The rules were relaxed for Pulte and I am asking for the same fairness to be given to me by relaxing the Primary Zone to the North side of my property to be consistent with the intent of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan Draft of July 1996, and Final Copy, December 1996, Article 11, Watershed Vision and Goals, I lb. Collective Statement found on Page 8, 5" paragraph: All vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved. This aligns with Kate's original statement to me that only the upper comer of my property has the Primary Zone on it. Secondly, to do what needs to be done by city staff and the developer to accommodate the allowable number of units the city calculated in the official "List of Residential Transition Properties within the Bluff Creek Corridor" conducted I believe in 1997. Which, according to my calculations with taking into consideration the "Final Plat is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to W. 78'" ST.", I come up with a figure of 22 or 23 units for my site. 2930 West 78" Street Chanhassen, MN 55317-4501 952-474-5099 Being a member of the Steering Committee for the Bluff Creek Corridor since 1995, I believe the committee worked on the "vision" and how to achieve the vision for about one year. We were told the city had to acquire the Primary and Secondary Zone through dedication by means of a development plan each time pieces of the corridor were to be developed or through direct purchase by the city. It was never meant to be "a taking" because obviously you need to pay someone for taking their land. Referencing Bluff Creek Watershed Plan Draft, July 1996, and Final Copy, December 1996, Article 11. Watershed Vision and Goals, I lb. Collective Statement Page 7, Paragraph 3; It states: "Private property ownership rights are recognized." So it came to pass that an ordinance needed to be created to acquire the land now to be known as the Primary Zone which prohibits development of any kind in that area, which consequently took away half of my land. What was given as very clear direction from The Steering Committee to the city, back and forth we went, many times over about this was that 300 feet from where the vegetation starts was to be The Primary Zone and 40 feet around the Primary Zone is the Secondary Zone. The committee was very specific about this more than anything else we talked about for a year. We were asked as landowners and citizens of the community to define the area of protection for the Bluff Creek which we did, which was the due process steps for creating the ordinance to be known as The Bluff Creek Ordinance, Article 31, Chapter 20, Section 20-1551 to 20-1564. This placed only the North Fast comer tip of my property into the Primary Zone. Though you have kept much of the I lb. Collective Statement, you specifically left out the directive of the 300 feet. This directive is found on Page 8 of the Bluff Creek Water Shed Natural Resources Management Plan Draft and Final Copy, December, 1996. "All vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved." How the ordinance was written became a "bait and switch" tactic by the city. I was baited in the beginning, along with a lot of others and then the city switched things and the Secondary Zone magically became the entire Primary Zone, which ultimately took away half of my property. You are taking away the reasonable use of my property and you need to return it or compensate me for it. According to the Bluff Creek Ordinance, Section 3. Section 20-1, of the Chanhassen City Code - Cluster Development means a pattern of development that arranges the layout of buildings on a compact area of the site so as to reserve a portion of the site for common open space or green space that is protected in perpetuity. A portion is not defined as "almost half the site". It also speaks to the creation of suitable balance between the amount of open space and the development in general. It does not say total balance or half of it as being a balance; it only says suitable which says it is negotiable. It also says the Planning Director shall make a determination as to the "where" the areas are so it means it is arbitrary in the initial delineation by the Planning Director. Also, the ordinance states "The city intends that all development within the district meet certain criteria of judgment" which states in Section 20 — 1461 Intent. Paragraph (a) "The Comprehensive Plan which includes the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, as amended from time to time",... So this speaks to negotiation of the rules again. Further, the ordinance states under Section 20 — 1464 Boundary Delineation, paragraph (b); The applicant may appeal the planning director's determination of the watershed zone boundary and type to the city council. Therefore, after all that has been said and done 1, Susan McAllister, the land owner, am respectfully asking the city council to bring my property's North section back to the original intent of the steering committee's vision that is specifically "All vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved." I believe this should be the Primary Zone which places the Primary Zone once again only on my upper North East comer of my property and allows a portion of the rest of the area in question to become the Secondary Zone which states in the Bluff Creek Ordinance Section 20 —1461 Intent, paragraph (b)... and to the greatest extent possible, preserving significant resources and minimizing impacts in the Secondary Zone through cluster development... The ordinance does allow for development in the Secondary Zone through use of the density transfer mechanism. According to the city's narrative we are developing 6.52 acres with about 30% of the area in the Bluff Creek Zone at 2 units per acre, which equals 13.04 units, but the Single Family Residence Ordinance automatically allows for twin homes so 13.04 becomes 26.08 units, less 15% for R.O.W., setbacks, etc. This is the city's own formula which then becomes 22.168 units rounded down to 22 units. This is the Ghost Plat Formula without the Primary Zone figured into the site. Bluff Creek Protection Area formula as follows: Using the city's "List of Residential Transition Properties within the Bluff Creek Corridor" my net density is 6 units per acre. 6.5 acres less 30% for Primary Zone equals 4.55 developable acres, multiplied by 6 net units per acre equals 27.3 units, rounded down to 27 units, less 15% for R.O.W., setbacks, etc. equals 22.95 units or 22/23 units. In order for the Bluff Creek Ordinance to be used properly and not become misused as just another mechanism for Eminent Domain without compensation, which it never was intended to be, it specifically allows for the same density that could be achieved through development of the entire site to now be transferred to a designated area. I therefore, expect the city to work proactively according to their own rules they put in place and allow me to have the 22 or 23 units that could be there without the ordinance yet through the use of density transfer. Please accept this letter as a matter of public record for the public hearing phase of the development of my property. I expect to address this with city council. Respectfully, / Susan McAllister, Landowner - .. - t it y• 'tw t. 1 /4 . S .R �`• .\ '7Y �it tat t y r$ }{1' i� / 1rA s Y a !}Ct S��• lr4A � 1c^y:�� ' y� i � ,t bTr�, �6 Y+- '.: •4e- 40 'r 'w- l -vt C �y}j.3NE4i° �:x �-'- �v Yf1 ird' ji F �y1,, till t om " {.J3''y 7141Rij ,�ryij �. r t . .l V...Y FF �t ,l� ! q )• � a a: a•= t. ff - s tr - _• g�ie .tomi.tV. Ayl d ik f �• ..f `�- a f \y}.l' r ; .• j. ..,, 4 r t ta - Y—IV y -� i '.�.I � " "-,={4y�.a S� t f\ �� -Ft�'u` i� `i. rl•.t v `Iy . _i r � � S F F Ail Bonestroo a c+ OEM ' . CITY OF Anderlik &CHANHASSEN \� 1Associates Engineers & Architects - i. There is a continuousgreenway along the creek from the Minnesota River to Lake Minnewashta — The creek corridor is more wild than domesticated. The design of an open space network has protected diverse wildlife habitats and cultural landscapes, such as farmland. In addition, there is adequate access to trails, parking, facilities and interpretive elements. There are numerous active areas for picnics to minimize pressure on native wild areas. The upper creek is accessible for a variety of uses including a trail system on the upper and middle reacheswith possible out -of comdor connections to observation areas --- A multiple use trail runs north from Pioneer Trail for biking, running and skiing. Side trails connect with neighborhoods. A community park in the upper reaches is contiguous to the trail system. There is a cross-country ski trail in the area and a bike trail north of Lyman Boulevard/Pioneer Trail. No motorized vehicles are allowed in the greenway. Significant environmental areas through the corridor will be identified and prioritized with a rati gsystem -- - The spectacular lower creek has been preserved in its natural.state with a rustic, limited -use nature trail running its length. Upstream development is limited to preserve the lower creek. Areas once degraded have been restored and maximum protection against pollution caused by urbanization has been achieved. The restoration goals for the watershed are realistic. In the lower creek, preservation of woods, stream quality, wetlands, wildlife and a nature sanctuary lets the sounds of nature, not cars, be heard. Habitats for the watershed's native animals and plants mll be defined according to their needs The former fields and drained wetlands of the upper creek have been restored to the original big woods region vegetation. A11 vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved. E— Invasive non-native species such as purple loosestrife and buckthorn are eliminated. The creek supports fish and serves as a wildlife corridor supporting deer, fox, turkeys, beaver and coyote. The wildlife is thriving and circulating freely throughout the greenway. Water quality is high throughout the watershed -- The water quality is maintained and, protected through recharge, infiltration, grassed waterways and restored wetlands that absorb stormwater runoff. If needed, open water storage areas either in -stream or upland are developed and natural flood control is achieved through these restored wetlands as reservoirs in the upper valley. Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan •.. �NNFSpf9 Joifag Minnesota Departrat of Transportation ,TV Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 132 Roseville, MN 55113 January 13, 2004 Sharmeen Al-Jaff Planning Department, City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: McAllister Parcel, Mn/DOT Review #P03-127 NE Quad of 78`x' Street and TH 41 Chanhassen, Carver Co. Control Section 1008 Dear Ms. Al-Jaff RECEIVED JAN 16 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please address the following issues: Additional information must be submitted to determine if a Mn/DOT Drainage permit will be required. Please submit before/after drainage area maps and before/after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events verifying that all existing drainage patterns and systems affecting Mn/DOT right of way will be perpetuated. The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm water is discharged from the site must not increase). Please direct questions concerning these issues to Richard Cady (651) 634-2075 of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. Mn/DOT will be turning back jurisdiction of 78th Street to the city. However, the timing of this is not until later this year. Mn/DOT has been issuing access permits for this city street since it has been under our jurisdiction. Until the roadway is released to the city we will maintain this procedure. The developer will need to apply for an access permit from our Permit Office. Please contact Keith VanWanger in the Permit Office at (651) 582-1443 regarding access permits. The plan shows a 7% grade to the intersection at 78`h Street in which there appears to be inadequate landing area. Mn/DOT does not have standards for approaches to city streets, but for the truck highway our standard is a 0.5% grade over 25 feet. We recommend that the city work with the developer to provide a safer intersection with 78"' Street. ■ Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in An equal opportunity employer complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651)582-1293. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Reviews Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1378. Since Brigid Gombold Senior Transportation Planner Copy: John Freemyer / Carver County Surveyor Roger Gustafson / Carver County Engineer Ed J. Hasek / Westwood Professional Servieces, Inc. Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL -MEDIUM DENSITY, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT: PRELINHNARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Public Present: Name Address Jeff Russell 7632 Arboretum Village Circle Mike Ryan 2595 Southern Court Todd Simning Plowshares Development Ed Hasek, Westwood Professional Services Eden Prairie Brent Hiscox Plowshares Development Susan McAllister 2930 West 78'° Street Scott Bemas, Edina Realty 6800 France Avenue So Holly Huber 2828 Coach Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet. Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Lillehaug: Sure, I'll start. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Bob, could you explain what the adjusted, maybe you already did and I missed it. What the adjusted Bluff Creek Overlay District boundaries per city staff. What does that really mean? And I'm looking on page 2 of 6 of the preliminary plat. Are you familiar with what I'm talking about there? Okay. Generous: The applicant is proposing that to change the primary zone boundary by moving these trees out we would create a new boundary and I tried to show this in the lined area. In addition the boundary goes down in here and he would propose that that boundary be expanded to the south and it's sort of like an exchange of area. Now it is an alternative and it's you know, a policy decision whether the Planning Commission and 27 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 council wants to go forward with that. Our environmental staff did recommend that the primary zone boundary is what it is and that we keep that and work from there. Papke: Clarification on that issue. The area that's proposed by the applicant to be added to the overlay district, is that where the barn is sited? Generous: Right, and the corral area. The open area that's there. Papke: So what they're proposing to do is take out the bam, remove the bam and then attempt to reforest that. Generous: Vegetate, right exactly. Fill in that canopy covered area. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Well I think my bigger question, I want to make a quick comment is, one of my pet peeves here. I mean if you look at this report, it's a good report. But we've got way too many conditions. I think what's going to happen here is just like in the last application. I mean just a simple thing like an underground storm system that's no longer there. Well we've got 48 conditions here. I mean I don't have any confidence in what's the end product going to be. I don't have a clue. We've got 48 conditions. My main question here is, if staff is going to try to recommend pushing Lots 4, 5 and 6 out of that and enforce the setback, am I following that correctly? Can that be done without really changing this whole site plan and kind of keeping this same picture here? I mean I don't see that happening, so what are we looking at? I mean are we really going to be looking at the final product here? I don't think we would be. Generous: No. Either, well one way to comply would be to remove those 2 lots. That'd be simple and we'd see what the results are at best. Another way is to revise the plat. Shift it down and go with twins or some other alternative. I don't know. We'll leave that up to them to resolve. Lillehaug: Has this been discussed with the applicant already? Generous: We told them that this has been an issue. They wanted to come forward and see you know, again they're presenting an alternative that would change the boundaries and would be reasonable. Sacchet: They're seeing where we go for it basically. Lillehaug: So I mean I have a lot of, there's 48 plus conditions here. I have a lot of questions. Claybaugh: That's on one of the motions. There's 5 motions. 48 out of just one of the motions. KII Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Generous: On the plat. Sacchet: So maybe we should take this in steps rather than try to be exhaustive. Lillehaug: Well I'm ready to make a motion to table it right now, because I don't see a complete application. Sacchet: But then in all fairness, if that's the action we would go, we should have some discussion to give staff and the applicant some idea why we're tabling. So I do think there is good reason to go through the motions here. On the other hand I would say you may just want to hold off a little bit with getting into real details and multitudes of questions until we actually get to that level of granularity. Lillehaug: Sure. Well then one question of staff here. The existing tree canopy, if you look on sheet 2 versus sheet 4 and 6. I mean they're nowhere near close to each other. I mean and that's just, I think that's an important issue that the existing tree canopy line, would you concur that it's not the same when you go from sheet to sheet. And specifically you can see it if you look at Lots 4, 5 and 6. Am I looking at that correctly? If you compare sheet 2 with sheet 4, the existing tree line is nowhere near the same. And that's how it is throughout the site. Maybe I'm missing something. Generous: It looks like they're showing them after... Sacchet: After they, they're a trade-off right? On sheet whatever. Sheet 5 I guess that is. Lillehaug: Okay. Sacchet: Actually 5 of 6 I think is clearly after the development. It shows the reforestation and then sheet 2 shows the current situation. Is that accurate? Generous: That's what it looks like, yes. Lillehaug: Alright. If you go to sheet 3 of 6, on the sanitary line. Do we have an appropriate easement for that sanitary line? East of the applicant's easterly property line. Saam: You mean west of the easterly property line? No. Lillehaug: East of the easterly property line, off the applicant's property. That storm sewer goes. Generous: In Arboretum Village. Lillehaug: It goes across a piece of property that's not his without an easement that's appearing. Saam: Yes, we do, as I remember Arboretum Village, we got easements pretty much Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 everywhere there weren't townhouse lots, and I don't know if Bob remembers, but all the open space I think was granted as an easement to the city. Generous: And the city also owns that land... Sacchet: Maybe we can ask that to the applicant. Maybe the applicant will remember too. Lillehaug: Alright. I'm going to stick to my important questions here. If you go to page 6 of the report. The Bluff Creek primary zone, 20 feet. I think it's supposed to be a 40 feet. I'm looking in the chart. It's supposed to be a 40 foot setback, correct? Generous: Correct. This is based on the variance. Lillehaug: Now is that, I've got to make sure I understand this correctly. Is that, it needs to be 40 feet from the primary line that is shown there? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: And we're nowhere near that. Generous: No. Sacchet: We're into the primary right now. Generous: Yeah, they're encroaching actually into the primary zone. Slagle: And your plan is to bring it to 20 feet. Generous: Make it a 20 foot setback. Lillehaug: Why? Why deviate in this case? I mean what is the outstanding circumstance that we'd, I mean the Bluff Creek Overlay District, it's supposed to be 40 feet. What is making this a different circumstance from the other adjacent properties to that whole district? Why is this different from anything else here? Generous: Well too is the location of West 78`s Street as it came into this project sort of dictated how this site lays out. There is a potential that they could shift the storm water pond to the north side of the property and shift the units closer to West 78`" Street. And then they may meet the setback because storm water ponds can be within that. Sacchet: Storm water could be in the setback? Generous: In the 40 foot setback, definitely. 30 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Okay. That's a water feature which is consistent with the Bluff Creek corridor and it'd be pre -treating it. There still would be the no cut zone but we would try to preserve the tree line again and that has been... Lillehaug: And that might work if you put the pond where the barn currently is, correct? Generous: Exactly, and that was one of the suggestions I had for them. Their alternative, so why don't they put it there and. I also wanted to see if they had a storm water pond there, they would have to discharge it down to the wetland. Eventually if they had to run a pipe down, then maybe they should put a trail connection down to the trail system over that pipe, since they're already going to the woods. But they came up with this alternative and have the storm water pond on the south side of the project. Lillehaug: So there's a trail, if I'm looking on sheet 2. It's way up in the north, that's the trail? Okay. You know what, I'm going to let other people talk. Thanks. Sacchet: Yeah, we can come back to you with this. We understand, this is not exhausting your questions. Slagle: I just have a couple of questions. Bob, touching upon the trail. Was there a reason given by the applicant, and I will ask them as well, but as to why there wasn't a connection down to the trail? Generous: Just that they didn't want to encroach into the treed area. The primary zone. At least to that extent. Slagle: So they don't want to encroach with a trail but they'll encroach with buildings. Generous: Yes. Slagle: Okay. Let me ask this question, and this might be one that just as a non -doable but was there ever consideration into extending whatever road that will be and having it come off Century Trail because I think you mentioned that either the city owns that land to the east or there's some. Generous: The city owns it, yes. Slagle: So, I mean have we considered instead of going onto West 78'" Street, if you went to Century, would you be able to build differently and fit 18? I'm just throwing this out. Saam: I guess it may have entered my mind at one point but was quickly put to rest. First off, the applicant doesn't own the land to the east. While the city has easements on it, it's not for roadway p,ses. So now we'd be telling the applicant well yeah, you have an access off West 720 8 Street but go buy land. I mean that's why I quickly put that idea to rest. There is an existing access that was planned for. We just built West 78d' 31 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Street and gave them the access there. It makes sense to use it. I will point out in one other previous submittals, they had two accesses off West 78`" Street. We pushed them away from that idea also and said just use the one access so. Sacchet Thanks Matt. Slagle: So, and I'll ask it again. We might have an application in front of us that could result in 3 townhouses or units potentially being eliminated, which might make it a, not a viable project I'm just saying perhaps to the applicant. And I guess I'm asking again, if you had a street that went to Century, would you be able to get more lots on there or would it in your opinion be the net results the same? No matter where it jets out to. Sawn: I haven't looked at it in that context. One thing I will point out though Commissioner Slagle, another idea we had recommended to them regarding the ponding was that we have a, there's a pond down at the corner of Century and West 7811 Street. A rather larger one to the east. We said there's some potential there to expand the size of that to treat your water. Basically pick the pond off the site. Then you have more usable area. You know with the primary zone and everything. Slagle: And how was that received? Saam: They said they'd look into it and this is I guess what we got so maybe we can ask the applicant. That's another option. I kind of hear where you're going. You're looking at options. That's another option that they could do which would maybe alleviate the primary zone setback and those issues. Lillehaug: And that's, if I can butt in here. Slagle: You certainly may. Lillehaug: And that's a regional pond so that'd be kind of the overall goal of the city to try to get rid of the smaller ponds and put them into one bigger pond? Saam: Yeah. Yeah, I mean we do like that idea. However there's other jurisdictions that have claim to that. MnDot. They would need approval through them. MaybeMnDot shot them down, I don't know. So I'll just throw that out too because it is used by the Highway Department for part of Highway 5. It is also though used by Pulte so, and MnDot's already granted approval for Arboretum Village to drain there so. Tjornhom: I have a few things. When they came before us in August. They didn't come before us. When they met with us about what. Sacchet: Work session Tjornhom: Yes. Did they have roughly 4 or 5 units in the overlay district? 32 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Generous: They had multiple plans. Tjomhom: I can't believe... Sacchet: I remember that. I think we, what they put in front of us as a concept was 18 units, not cutting into the tree line ... because that's what I recall. Or at least that's what we asked for. There was one proposal where, I think that's the ultimately the recommendation we gave them. Lillehaug: This looks familiar. Generous: Yeah, this is the one that the applicant provided me. They were just for discussion purposes. They were looking at this concept. And as you can see, it backs into there. The direction was, you know townhouses may be okay but it looks like there's too many units on that and I don't know if you went any farther into looking at the primary zone boundaries. Sacchet: Certainly the guidance we gave them at the time was that we wanted to not cut into the northern tree line. I recall that very clearly. Tjomhom: Okay. Also, are these rental townhouses or are they just townhouses that will be sold? Generous: It's my understanding they're for sale. Tjomhom: Okay. And how does this fit into the metropolitan, or the Met Council's comprehensive plan for our city? Generous: It provides an alternate housing type. Tjomhom: Alright. Generous: So from that standpoint it's good. It's also at a density that's good for us under the low density. We'd like to push it up closer to the 4 units per acre and so at 3. 18, it would be better. Tjomhom: And in the discussion of maybe changing things around in the development and putting the pond, or the stormwater pond into the zone, the creek area. Is that correct? Is that what I was hearing? Do they over spill? I mean I keep thinking you know, this is like a pretty important part of the bluff, and are they going to overflow? Could it happen where there's a rain and it fills up and then all the fertilizer from the yards and all the whatever runs into that bluff. Or no? Saam: I mean potentially I guess anything could happen if you get a serious flood but the ponds are sized for hundred year floods, which are fairly rare, so. Plus it will have an outlet pipe, so I guess we don't typically see them overflow. 33 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Slagle: You could talk to St. Michael though. Sawn: Yeah, and Red River Valley. Those type of things can happen but. Sacchet: Just to clarify Bethany. Are you referring to the storm water pond or the Bluff Creek setback? Tjomhom: Maybe I wasn't hearing things correctly but I thought that the units could be shifted and that you could then have the storm water pond in that area. Is that what I heard? Sacchet: Yeah, okay. Generous: That was one of the alternatives. Feik: For just a moment bear with me. Assuming this moved forward tonight and passed, they ultimately have to come in for final plat, which we would not see. Generous: Correct. That goes to council. Feik: Thank you. Which could be very different from what we've got, if we have to eliminate 3 units, move roads, move structures. That's it, thanks. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Just one quick one. Relative to the Bluff Creek Overlay District, removal, replacement proposal of the applicant, which I understand you are opposed to. Has the city forester given you any guidance as to the suitability of the area proposed? The 4,700 square feet that's proposed for replacement as to how feasible it would be to revegetate that? Did you get any input on that or are you just rejecting that out of hand? Generous: She's supportive of the idea. She didn't directly comment on this proposal, but very similar to our overall Bluff Creek plan that talks about re-establishing vegetation in the corridor, especially on farm properties. Papke: Thank you Bob. Sacchet: Any questions Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. Has the applicant discussed the price point for these units at this point? Generous: I did discuss it earlier today. Their base price would be approximately $300,000 per unit. 34 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Okay. I guess most everything else has been touched on with the exception of some of these recommendations by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. Didn't see any comments with respect to staff's comments regarding it. It's on their letter to yourself. One of the last paragraphs where they're recommending a two cell basin in lieu of a single cell basin. Can you comment on that at all? Generous: Well I did ask Lori Haak, our Water Resource Coordinator. She said that she didn't believe it was necessary. This pond would drain eventually to that regional pond, and so you get the same benefit. Claybaugh: Okay. And then direct this question to Matt. If in fact the NURP pond was moved out to the north end in lieu of the south location that it's at currently, and those units were shifted back, do you have any concerns about the radius of that tum? If that road had to be reconfigured. Saam: I guess I'll say without seeing a proposal I don't have any concerns. I'm assuming they would submit something that abides by code. Sacchet: Is that it? Claybaugh: I think that's all my questions. Sacchet: Yeah, I've got 3 quick questions. First, the primary and secondary boundaries. On the subject property's east boundary, that seemed to kind of make a jig. All of a sudden it's, and I know what it is. Is it 20 feet or 30 feet, they all of a sudden are further down. Why do we have this C type of phenomena happening there with those boundaries? That seems a little awkward. It kind of takes away from the credibility of those boundaries. Generous: I believe they're relying on our base, the city map. The GIS map which started out at that point. We would suggest that the primary zone boundary is a tree edge on the property to the east also, so then that line would be contiguous. Sacchet: And then in addition, if we look, there is actually a couple of the units are drawn on the Arboretum Village. That are immediately adjacent. They seem to certainly come all the way to, and also under the secondary, do they touch on the primary or is that just the lot size? Do you see what I'm referring to? Generous: Oh yes, and I think it's because they picked up the line off the map as opposed to the actual physical conditions. Sacchet: Just to be really clear, those squares are the lot sizes of those units. The units are sitting to the road side? They don't, I mean where would the unit be sitting on those? Generous: It would be within the lot line there but they don't have the specific building pad. 35 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Sacchet: So potentially the building could be touching into the secondary but definitely not into the primary? Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay. That's my first question. My second question, there is this rather significant retaining wall proposed to the east of this development. It actually says 9 foot height, which seems very high, so I'm a little bit perplexed because the territory there seems relatively flat. I mean not totally flat but being from Switzerland this is definitely flat. And all of a sudden we have a 9 foot retaining wall. And I look at this and I kind of wonder, are they planning to make these walkout, lookout units and just fill the dirt in between so that it's a level up and then put a retaining wall at the end. It seems a little crude. But it kind of looks like that. Do you have any enlightening wisdom on that please? Generous: I'd defer to our engineer. Sacchet: Or our engineering, alright. Matt. Saam: You basically got it right Chairman Sacchet. They're raising the grade on that east side there significantly to get the walkouts on both sides of the street. Sacchet: And where's that dirt coming from? Saam: I'm assuming, I haven't checked this with the applicant, but I'm assuming they're pulling some dirt, probably not for the road bed but from the pond area. They're going to be excavating out there. Maybe that will be used for berming or around the retaining wall. But they may indeed be trucking some in. That hasn't been determined yet. Sacchet: And then we have this road stubbing literally feet away from, few feet away from that retaining wall. Is that acceptable? Saam: We'll require barricades to be put up there but. It's not the best situation, no. Sacchet: It'd make an excellent ski jump if you put a ramp up there. Anyhow it's, I'm getting carried away. My third question, condition number 4 of the preliminary plat says the final plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to West 78th Street. What are we talking about in that case? Generous: As part of the Arboretum Village development, they did have an Outlot J that they preserved there, or that was here as part of their property. And then Outlot G was the property that was dedicated to the city. These are excess properties. The developer couldn't use them and so he's willing to sell Outlot J to the developer and the city really doesn't need this portion so we're working on an agreement. 36 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Okay, that answers it. Thank you very much Bob. That's the questions. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and see what you can add to all this wonderful story. Please state your name and address for the record. Todd Simning: Todd Simning, Greenwood, Minnesota. Plowshares Development. Are your eyes glossed over yet? I think mine are. Sacchet: Not totally. Todd Simning: Not totally? I guess I'll start with the couple easy items first. Just in reference to the trail system. Whether it would actually go down into the trees or not. The biggest reason it was decided not to put a trail system through there was strictly on the advice of when we were working with staff. 41 is actually going to be improved at some point and there's most likely going to be a trail connection along side 41 going down to the existing trail to the north, so at the time we just left it out of there. Secondly in reference to the street coming off Century Boulevard. We actually looked at it at one point in time, but what ended up happening was, it was too close to the comer of the radius of West 78`s Street and Century Trail, and so it was kind of eliminated as a possibility to actually put that mad through there, so we actually did look at that at one time. Also in reference to the pond, and this will go into a bigger story as it unfolds, but in reference to the pond being, taking our water off site, we did check with MnDot and they shot us down completely. They were already taking Pulte's water on and they really wanted to preserve that for themselves and were not interested in working with us to allow our water to go there so that was one of the other reasons why we ended up with a pond on our side over here. Just as a clarification, and I guess it might be something that we need to discuss with yourselves as well as staff. We were under the assumption that the variance would be 25 feet and not 20 feet, and that we couldn't grade within the last 15 feet of it, versus the last 10 feet of it. So we were gaining 5 feet on a variance addition but we had to stay further away from the primary because you guys had 10 feet and we thought we had to be 15 feet from the primary zone. So that was just more of a clarification for our conversations with staff and maybe Bob can shed some light on that. Okay, so let me start from the beginning of coming out here in August or September with you guys. You know we had went through many different designs of this overall plan and I had actually brought one to you guys that showed 24, well I had 32 lots. I had 28 lots and I had 24 lots. And you guys laughed at me and said don't bring the 32. Don't bring the 28 and so we put the 24 out, and one of the ideas that you guys had was mainly that you know what, we'll support townhouses there but 24 probably looks like it's too many. At the time that was disappointing but yet on the same token we went back to staff to try to work through getting your ideas and trying to work through a good plan with them. In the midst of trying to figure out all this, and what we wanted to accomplish and we met with Bob on many different occasions. Before we went through this plan that you guys see right now, we had actually came up with an idea via Bob, and it had to do with the ponding on the north side. And we actually eliminated that on our own accord as a viable option and I'm going to pass around a detail here that will kind of help explain why we ended up deleting that as one of our options. The plan that you guys have in front of us still has 18 units on it, but it does show that the pond can fit and is allowable 37 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 on the north side over there. Bob and ourselves had actually talked about possibly putting it towards the east side, and what ended up happening was that we ended up putting it on the west side as an option when we looked at it for a couple different reasons. It made more sense just strictly because, from an engineering point of view, the overflow of the storm water would actually go down the ditch over here instead of if it was on the east side here, the overflow would actually go down over the, through the woods and then down over the trail and eventually make it into the wetlands. We didn't think that was a great option just strictly because you know I know it's engineered to 100 year flood event, but you just never know anymore. So we wanted to go ahead and put it on the west side over here because then it would actually go right down the ditch line on 41 and not really end up going over the tree line and into the wetlands down there over the trail. In doing this type of concept, whether we were on the west side here as a pond or on the east side, if we were able, or if we were actually going to do that, which we definitely could do and we could present to you guys, we would lose an additional, roughly 20 to 25 trees no matter where we ended up putting the pond there. To us it made sense to try to put the pond up here towards the south side, and go ahead and try to save as much tree canopy as we possibly could. Our price point of our units are going to be in the $300,000 to $400,000 range. This is a very unique site but it really offers us a lot of natural amenities that we, as well as yourselves want to try to protect. And so using that and wanting to keep the tree line and knowing that those would be our most valuable units back there, we eliminated it as a possibility of going in here and showing the pond. Tearing out another 20 trees and you know having to sell that and open it up and you'd see 41 a little bit more, and we didn't really want to have that happen. The other thing that it allows us to do if we don't put the pond down there in the north side, and we leave it up here towards the south side, yes. I am asking that we be able to encroach on the tree line just slightly. We will go ahead and revegetate with nice vegetation, trees, that sort of thing. But it will also allow us the opportunity to get a little nicer buffer along West 78a' Street, instead of having the units being at the minimum 50 foot setback far up and close to West 78`b Street, we can at least have some sort of happy medium in there to say okay, if we had to have the best of everything, obviously we wouldn't be encroaching the trees and we'd be as far away from West 78`s Street as possible, but in order to make everything work out, if in fact we can put the pond here to the south, move it just slightly into the trees, it made more sense to us. And so that's why we came here today. I know you guys have a lot of questions, or had a lot of questions on it but that's why we came today with the outline that we had. There's been a lot of conversations with staff and ourselves. I don't know. We just wanted to really save more of the tree line as possible. If in fact you guys wanted to see that the pond is on the north side, we can definitely do that. We're not opposed to it. We're willing to work with staff on that and work with the Planning Commission on that but that's the reasoning why we came with what we had today. Couple other small notes I guess. Let's see. On page 20 of 20, which is number 8 and there's a lot of conditions which is a little bit confusing to ourselves too. But it specifically states in there that sprinkler systems on homes, it has to be for all the units. All of our units actually don't meet the 8,500 square foot minimum. Our two unit buildings don't, and I just wanted to make a clarification on that also for staff maybe to note that we understand that our 3 unit buildings are over 8,500 gross square feet so they would have to be sprinkled. But the 2 unit buildings actually don't, gosh what do you IN Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 call it? Don't require it. However, having said that, if we do choose to sprinkle all of our units, we'd also want it noted that we actually are not required to have a hammerhead in the street system then. So that little turn around, which is right here, this little thing right here for fire trucks to get in and what not, we could possibly eliminate that if in fact we did sprinkle all our units, so I just wanted to clarify that on that item. In our opinion, I hope you guys feel the same way but in our opinion we feel that the proposed layout is actually a much better proposal than what we possibly could have come with and been within the rules and the guidelines of the city ordinances and city codes. We're very excited about the overall project. I hope you guys are too. We're looking forward to building a unique development in Chanhassen. We created one, Marsh Glen right over off of 101 and West 861s Street, which again was a very sensitive area, just strictly because of the wetlands areas behind. We worked hard with the city staff to create an easement along there and save as many trees as possible. We finished all our houses are done. Homeowners are in there and it really turned out great so if I can encourage you guys just to go through there and see what we are as a developer and a builder, that might give you a better feeling of what we feel is a good neighborhood and how we like to save trees and save the natural environment around us. And I'm open to any questions you guys might have. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant. You're nodding Rich. Slagle: I can start if you want. Just a few. Can you tell me, excuse me, what would be your target audience? Who do you see living here, assuming this goes through. Todd Simning: I see this as a development very similar to our Settlement Ridge, the Pines development over in Eden Prairie. We had two phases over there. We did 34 lots. 32 or, 33 lots on one side of the street and 28 lots on the other side. But it would shock you. It shocked us on what our audience was. We had anything from 27-28 year old first time homebuyers, through the 30's, the 40's, the 50's and we had some 70 and 80 year old people. We hit all target ranges of ages in there and it just, it really surprised us. We had a lot of single women that actually bought in our developments. I would say probably about 25 percent of our client was single women and they were looking for a smaller development that they could feel safe in, and that's one of the reasons why we, I think we attracted that type of buyer from what they had told us. Slagle: Were there families with kids? Todd Simning: Very few. I think in our first phase out of 33 we had 1, which was the Deans and then on the second side we have 2 out of 28 that actually had any children. Slagle: The reason I'm asking, specifically with the children's issue is, this development is, correct me if I'm wrong staff but a fair distance to any park that we have in the city. In fact the two closest parks would be Lundgren's private parks. So if there are children, and if you remember when we met a few months ago my question was in your center area showing a cul-de-sac or a circle. One of my recommendations would be that you put some type of playground in there. Obviously you haven't followed that and that's okay, Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 but I then follow along with the questions earlier about the trails because I do believe you're correct that 41 at some point will result in a trail. I know it's going to connect to the north, to the Longacres area. I don't know what the plan is to go south to West 78th from the trail. Will it continue down to West 78th9 Generous: To 8Vd Street eventually. Slagle: Okay. My question then, if I can ask is, that being the case, would you be open then as far as your sidewalks go, to extending out to 41 as you come out of your development? If I'm not mistaken the sidewalk is on the south side of West 78th. Todd Sinning: It's on the, our sidewalk actually, and I don't think Bob's got this highlighted completely right here. He's got it initially marked here but we also have a sidewalk that does come down to 41, and that's actually on the plan. It's just not highlighted right now. Slagle: Okay. Obviously you've heard sensitivities about the primary line. Can this project proceed if 2 or 3 of your units were eliminated? Todd Simning: Fair question and I know that, I do know that it would be difficult but I guess I couldn't answer. I do know without 3 we're not doing it for sure. Anything less than what we have, it would be, it would be, we can't be over $400,000 on our units. We know what sells. Our units sell between 325 and 390,000 dollars and it doesn't make it a viable project for us to sell these things over $400,000 because we know that that buyer's not there. We've proven it on our other sites. It just doesn't make any sense for us to do anything. Slagle: Okay. And then the last question I have is, it was mentioned earlier regarding the number of conditions that were in the, at least one of the items we were looking at, and again I think echoing what's been shared, that's a lot so my question, and Mr. Chair I hope I'm not being premature by asking this but would you be opposed to, if there was a motion to table this until some of those things get resolved. Todd Simning: Yes, we would be open to that. On there it seemed, at least I thought that a lot of those conditions on there were redundant to what is normal operating procedures on a development, so I actually thought it was kind of strange for maybe a different reason than you guys have because we just assumed that those things are happening, and typically on our conditions we see things that are out of the ordinary that aren't typical so. Slagle: Fair enough. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Questions from the applicant. Feik: You said the price point is roughly 300-31/2. What's the square footage of the units Finished square footage. Ell Planning Commission Meeting—January 6, 2004 Todd Simning: 2,700 square feet, up and down. Finished both levels. 1,500 on the main floor, 1,200 on the lower, yep. Feik: And as long as you're standing here, I have a question for the city engineer as it relates to the parcel to the east that you said that we have some sort of an easement over. And this may be a hair brained idea, but within that easement could you put a pond? Could you move the pond east off the lot? It could be an amenity for the neighbors to the east. Would that generally fit within that? Saam: I guess potentially it could be done. Keep in mind again they don't, this applicant doesn't own the property. The City doesn't own it. We have certain rights over it, so whoever owns it, I'm assuming an association owns that. They'd have to negotiate with them in order to be able to do that, but I guess yeah, it could be done. Feik: Just looking at an alternative. Any gut reaction to, knee jerk reaction to that? Todd Sinning: I think it would be difficult myself just, and I think Matt's nodding his head up and down too. We thought that this parcel right here we could work with the city and buy it. This over here ended up being more of a kind of given to the city I think more on an open space arena and I think it would be difficult just strictly because you end up having units right next door to it and if it's not your pond, who's going to want a pond sitting there. Feik: Alright, just curious. Those were my only two questions, thank you. Papke: Continuing on the pond vein here, and let's maybe just try to finish off the last alternative. Putting it where the barn is, I understand, if I understood you correctly, you were concerned about some of the trees that would have to be taken out to put the pond to the north central part of the property where the barn currently is. Is that correct? Todd Simning: Well 20 to 25 trees would be taken out, whether we went to basically where the pond is, or over by the west side. And our concern was mainly with the pond, what I'll call the east side, was just strictly from overflow, any water that does make it down past into the trees and then it goes over the trail and continues onward. That was the main concern there. It was easier to get water out of the pond if it went on the west side. Papke: Right, correct. But if we overlook that at the moment and just look at the practability of putting it where the barn is. If one looks at the trees there, they're elms. They're box elders. They're not the more significant trees on the property. If you know we looked at taking some of those out and locating the pond in the central area there, would that, is that feasible from your perspective as a developer and the grading. Are there any other barriers to locating the pond there... W Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Todd Simning: If I may, I just need to converse with Ed Hasek with Westwood Engineering here. Papke: Sure. While they're conferring. I walked the property last weekend a little bit. I didn't actually go on the property but observed it from a distance and if you look at that barn area, it's not, there's big brush piles and so on. I mean it's not, it's the kind of area that if you could use that square footage for a pond, it might not be a bad alternative. Ed Hasek: I believe that you have a copy of this. I'm hoping you did. A color copy of this that was submitted to the city. Are we on the screen? Right, excellent... vegetation in this area. The city doesn't differentiate between box elder. Significant tree is simply is a tree that... Papke: And I disagree with the city on that regard. Ed Hasek: ...but we have the ordinances to deal with I guess. My name is Ed Hasek. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. I'm a registered landscape architect and a planner in the State of Minnesota. I would agree. The vegetation in this area is less quality than perhaps other areas of the site. There's no question about it. That continues all the way across the back of the Pulte parcel as well. Our concern again, simply from the design standpoint was what was going to happen with the water if it overflowed the pond. And if there's a way to work with the city to pipe that underneath and get it into the creek underneath the trail so the trail doesn't wash out, that's an option that we can certainly look at. Personally I think that if we were going to put the pond on the north side, this is probably where it wants to go if it wants to go anywhere. I guess from a design standpoint and from simply the overflow and what makes the most sense from an engineering standpoint, it seemed to us that it should be adjacent to the road so we can use existing infrastructure, ditches. Papke: Just to complete that thought, from the city engineering perspective, if the concern is overflow of the pond, and we're designed for a 100 year storm event, is this something we should be worried about or is this something that we can safely say you know, the likelihood of the pond overflowing is not that great. And if it does overflow, okay. So the trees get a little, the tree roots get wet for a day or two, because there's a pretty substantial slope there. The water's not going to hang there. It's going to flow right down to the marsh. Sawn: Exactly. I guess from that perspective if it's sized for the 100 year, I mean we don't look at it outside of that. So if it's sized for the 100 year, we're fine with that. Papke: Okay. No other questions, thank you. Slagle: If I can just add to that. Matt, would not if it was on the northwest corner of the property, and the thought being that it would overflow into the ditch. The ditch is going to run down into the swamp anyway. 42 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Just takes a different path. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah, I just had a question. On page 4 of 20, the last paragraph under Section 20-501. Intent. Staff states in exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development of plans will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than what would be the case with other more standard zoning districts. Could you respond or explain what you think you bring to the stew in that context? Todd Simning: You want me to stir it up a little bit? Claybaugh: Sure. Todd Simning: I actually think that we do bring a higher quality product to the market place. I think that's exemplified in a couple different ways. Number one, if in fact you go to our developments that we've built, our townhouse developments, the Pines primarily over at Settlers Ridge. When you go through there, we're not the normal builder. Or developer. I mean you see a lot of undulation in land, in landscaping. You'll see significant amounts of large trees that we brought in. You'll see a significant amount of actual landscaping that we've done, which contrast that to say Arboretum Village next door. It's a pretty standard stark looking development. They serve a purpose because they're at a certain price range, and I'm not knocking that but if you contrast that with what we have done in our developments, you'll see a drastic difference in the quality there of just strictly the land itself. Number 2, just with our units themselves, if you do go and take a look at what we've accomplished with our's versus some of the other guys. Lundgren Brothers, that would be in our same price category, that sort of thing. You'll see a definite difference there and I think that's why we've, when we've competed with them in the same developments, which we have in several different occasions, we've outsold them very well just strictly because our units are more attractive than what they had to offer. And then lastly, customer service wise, if you talk to our clients that we, that are living in our developments right now, as well as who we're building with right now, there's a definite difference between ourselves and some of the other guys on the street. We really take care of our clients and that's important to us. Claybaugh: I'm going to try and fine tune that question a little bit. I'm assuming most of those things that you covered are reflected in your price point. I'm speaking more specifically to the context that we have 5 motions in front of us, okay. Regarding to this conditional use permits, land use amendments, what is the benefits specifically to the city? What is the trade off for Chanhassen? Todd Simning: You guys get a nicer product within your city. You feel good about a nice development. You get tax base. That's always important. So if you're looking at, I would think that those would be the two primary items. Besides that, it's going to fill somewhat of a void that there's not a lot of townhouses within the kind of move up 43 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 market where there's quite a few people that live and work around the area that again from single women to retirees to young people that are looking for a higher quality neighborhood to live in, and you guys would attract that as far as Chanhassen goes. You're definitely up and coming as Eden Prairie's filling up and you know it continues to come out and you just see more and more people that are starting to come out here. Claybaugh: That's all I have. Lillehaug: A couple questions for you. This is a real easy one. Why are you cheating yourself out of 5 feet with having a 31 foot road instead of 26 foot road? Todd Simning: You know we have a couple developments right now that we did. Our first Pines project in Eden Prairie, I think we had, god it was pretty narrow. I think it was like 21. 22 foot, and when we did that one there were two, I always try to get better, okay. There were two problems with that. Number one, we had a 22 foot wide street, which was allowable, but we also had smaller driveways. Our second side of the Pines we went to a 24, or 26. It's 24 or 26 and we went to 20 or 22 foot driveways. Construction wise, it makes it a little tough because there's not a lot of places to park. Besides that, as people live there and they're having company, it's really nice to, even though we have nice sized driveways here, there's, it's nice to have some place for your company to park. In this development, I think we're just getting that much better again where we're saying okay, let's give ourselves a 31 foot street. Let's give ourselves some places to park. We have 25 foot driveways on average, and it just provides a nicer element for the people that ultimately live there over time, and that was important to us. We just listened to our customers and that's what they've told us they look for in developments and so that's what we wanted to accomplish. Lillehaug: How about with your wall? I measured, based off the contours, the existing and proposed. It needs to be maybe a 10 to 12 foot wall. Do you have any concerns with that? Even if it's a 9 foot wall. How would you address, you know a rail or a fence on top of it. Do you have any concerns with that? Todd Simning: At the height of it, it is 9 foot and then it tapers down on both sides fairly quickly. We think we can do a nice landscaped barricade type deal to prevent any issues or problems there. We actually have one at the Pines right now, which is in Eden Prairie that is actually larger than this. We do them out of boulder walls. We have our boulder walls engineered so they're not just a flat, ugly looking wall. I mean there's some undulation to it. It's nice looking. It actually incorporates the overall landscaping with the trees. Is more of a natural setting than something that's just so commercial and it goes straight up and down so we've had really good luck with it and haven't had any issues. Lillehaug: Okay. My last comment, or question would be your access off of West 78th Street. If you're traveling east on West 78`s, you know you have your, you do have your access right at the end of the median. It's not ideal. Looking at having, providing an access off of Century Trail, if that indeed is a city outlot there. Is one of the other EV -11 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 concerns that you can't get the elevations to tie in with Century Trail? I mean are we totally abandoning the idea of coming off of Century Trail? Todd Simning: We strictly had just because of what we had found out from the city earlier, that when we had to be so far from the corner here and we really didn't have anything to work with when you're considering that you had to be so far up and then all of a sudden you're right next to somebody else's units over here again. It's kind of like the pond. We really felt as though we would probably get enough outcry from neighbors so to speak that we were trying to force something on them, and really we wanted to deal with our own property and that was a better way of going about it. Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks. Sacchet: One more quick question. To what extent, obviously this is not a new notion that staff is recommending we preserve that northern tree line, and I do believe we also touched on it in our preliminary meeting when we were here, what 34 months ago. How doable, or how much effort have you put into looking how this could be accommodated without having to cut into that northern tree line? Todd Simning: Right now because of the setbacks from West 78a Street with our pond, on the south side right there, we can't make that work. Can't do it. Sacchet: So you feel you exhaustively researched that? Todd Simning: The only thing that we could do to get just a little bit further out of it is, is to potentially go down to a 26 foot street, which would bring in another 5 feet out and again hopefully I addressed that. I mean ultimately it's up to you guys whether you want to say that I have good reason or not to do that. Sacchet: But the pond needs to have that size? It couldn't be a little lopsided to bring that side down to... Todd Simning: According to our engineers, that's the size that it needs to have, or be there to accommodate what we have. Sacchet: So you feel you pretty exhaustively looked at that Todd Simning: For the layout that we have here, I think that we have exhausted what we could possibly do. The only thing that could happen is if you guys said that no, we really want that pond on the north side. Then basically I would say hey table me, and give me that direction and we'll go back and we'll redesign the plan to show that. We just didn't feel as though that was a great alternative. Sacchet: Well yeah, well we can touch on that in comments a little more. Thank you. 45 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Lillehaug: One other quick question if I could. Staff addressed your sanitary line, trying to keep that out of the normal water level. Paralleling the pond on the south there. Do you feel that where it's at, it's out of the normal water, or it's above that water line? And my concern is, we try to push that north, we're getting too close to the houses and structures with that line. Todd Simning: You just went right over my head. Ed, do you? Ed Hasek: Could you ask the question again? Lillehaug: Staff, in their report indicated that they would like to verify or to ensure that the sanitary line that parallels the pond, north of the pond, south of the houses, that it's, I'm not paraphrasing here but I think it's ideal to have it out from underneath the normal water level of the pond. My question is, is it right now? Ed Hasek: I believe it currently is right on the edge and it can be moved and we understand, that's a very good comment by staff but that can be accommodated. I'd like to address just, there were some comments about, earlier about the elevation of the road and some of the things that were going on and I'd like to go through that really quickly with you. Really what's happening with this site is the pond elevation and the need to store water in that pond, the outlet elevation that we have on that is setting the elevation of all of the structures on this site. We have 4, 5, or 6 steps in the garage going into the units. We kept the garages as low as possible. Pushed the units up as far as possible to make this whole thing work, so the elevation is really being set by the water elevation in the pond that's on the north side of the property right now. Just so you understand why things are as high as they are. One other reason why there was some comment about the elevation of the wall. Personally when I put this thing together and designed it to start with, I had the end of the road higher than the wall and the engineering staff at Westwood said no, we're not going to do that. We've had problems with that in the past. The wall has to be higher than the end of the road because we don't want any water running to the back of the wall, especially if it's going to be a boulder wall. So that kind of sets the elevation. The pond sets the elevation of the units. The units set the elevation of the road. The road sets the elevation of the wall. It's kind of how it goes so. Sacchet: While we're at it. You would have to import dirt to build it up that high wouldn't you? Ed Hasek: I haven't gone through a complete analysis. I believe that our first go around we thought we were about 10,000 square yards short. That's not a lot of dirt for a site like this. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair I had a question. Sacchet: Go ahead. 46 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: You commented on the touch down points for the existing plan that you have before us. Could you comment on how it would affect the elevations of those touch down points if the retention pond was put on the north side? Ed Hasek: I think we could lower the site slightly. Not substantially but slightly. It may go down 2 or 3 feet. The mad elevation. Claybaugh: That's substantial. Ed Hasek: Yes. On this site it could potentially be substantial. The other thing that it might offer us is the opportunity to reduce the number of stairs in a garage. Claybaugh: Right. Ed Hasek: But that would mean we'd have to keep the road up in order to do that. The garage floor has to go up. Therefore the road has to stay up because we can't. Claybaugh: What kind of elevation do you have on your garage floor over your road elevation? Ed Hasek: I don't know off hand. I think it must be a foot and a half roughly. It's not even that I don't think. Claybaugh: That's the extent of my comments Sacchet: Okay. Alright, thank you very much. Todd Simning: Thank you. Sacchet: This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to comment on this item, this is your chance to come forward and tell us what you want to say to us. Please state your name and address for the record please. Mike Ryan: Yes, hi. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mike Ryan, 2595 Southern Court and seeing this proposal, it does seem like these guys are going to great efforts in many ways so it looks like a fine project. However, for many of you who know me, I was very involved with the Pulte project and I had a lot of concerns about that and using some of the terms tonight here, that there is I think a need for some consistency with respect to the comp plan and where we work closely with the Pulte project and that, everything north of 78's Street was on the comp plan, or is on the comp plan, is designed for low density. And in this case I understand that they're requesting that to be medium density. And the council at that time did recognize that everything north should be in that low density requirement. This project is, it is known as, or being defined as the Highlands which is, I believe that's part of the head waters if you will of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and I do have issue as a resident of Chanhassen about that variance requesting, going from 40 to 20, and really would like the city and the council here to 47 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 take a good strong look at that. But most importantly is the old growth tree forest there. I think with the Pulte project, as well as with the Lundgren project there was a lot of effort to try to maintain that old growth forest and, I'm not trying to sound as somebody who's into trees and so forth, but I think that, and certainly in Chanhassen there is very few forests and I hate to see, and I think this is where one of the units, if I may. Down here in 9, 10 and 11, and I realize that's not in the primary corridor but it's, I know it's a very healthy tree structure and I don't know if there's anything that the council here can take a look at with respect to that. So I guess in summary I just wanted to make those comments and I don't know if there is any clarity as to exactly or to communicate this but how much of a percent of the trees be it in the primary and the secondary as well as even beyond that corridor, is going to be lost. So I don't know if staff knows that or if anybody could speak to that. Sacchet: You want to quickly touch on that Bob? Since it is part of the development. Generous: Well I'd like to start with the consistency with the comp plan first. This development is considered low density. The only reason the land use amendment is in place is because our PUD ordinance doesn't permit the clustering of housing, so it's actually less dense than Pulte's project north of West 78's Street. That came in at 3.5 units per acre. This is 3.18 so it's less dense than that. ...setback, that's a question. Old growth forest. Jill did a calculation and I worked on this earlier today. Let's see if I can remember. They're removing approximately, what is it? 27 percent. 33 percent of the existing canopy coverage on this site as part of the overall project. The percent that's in the primary zone, we'd like to get it to zero. Right now they have about 4,000 square feet of area. The total tree removal is just under an acre. It's .9 acres so they're doing a lot. One of their previous plans actually preserved this old growth trees but in exchange they were cutting into the trees up there so it is a balance on the site. Which area do we want to preserve more? I must commend them for their plan. They have preserved some of those trees along Highway 41 corridor and in the future if they can work it out as part of the final construction plans, they would save additional trees because it only adds value to their project and it's less trees that they potentially have to plant on this site. Mike Ryan: Okay, so what is the percentage of complete loss of trees? Sacchet: Well according to the staff report the baseline currently has 42 percent cover and the proposed tree preservation would go down to 28 percent. Mike Ryan: So is that 50 percent of the 42? Sacchet: It's gone from 2.75 acres down to 1.84 acres. And the applicant actually made, I've never seen an applicant that made such a diligent effort with actually inventorying. They also did it in terms of the total number of trees. The significant ones that we inventoried go from 106, if I read that correctly, and 27 would be lost by that calculation, or it'd be 25 percent of them in terms of numbers. In terms of the size of the trees, it's a little more dramatic. It goes down from roughly 2,000 inches and close to 800 are CI:1 Planning Commission Meeting—January 6, 2004 removed, so it's probably in the 40 percent range in terms of the size of the trees. And I'll have some comments about that later on. Mike Ryan: And I'm not trying to, like Pulte where we're not objecting to the Pulte project but what we're just looking for again is consistency and this does, I do mean this. It does seem like a reasonable project. One thing, and this is probably more editorial, is that it, I learned a lot with the Pulte project but it always amazes me how these developers come in here and all of a sudden it's, how it ends up being everybody else's problem versus their's and as one being in business, usually you know the lay of the land. You know what you're working with and you know your price points and so forth, but you guys certainly see this much more than I do in this process but at any rate. Not trying to throw a wrench in it. It's just ... it could be any extent or great efforts to try to keep the old growth, I think everybody would be appreciative of that. Sacchet: Thanks. Appreciate your comments. Anybody else wants to comment about this? Susan McAllister: I'm Susan McAllister. I'm one of the parties that's involved with this. It's my property. The old growth trees are very much on their way to their death bed because it's a high parcel and they basically, not all of them but most of them have been hit by lightning and so I just wanted to make that clear. I do have some photographs of some of them. And my number two point is that I used to walk in the Longacres forest a long time ago, before they developed it so yeah, there has been a lot of trees taken out of that site too. I guess I would, I don't know where you're going to go with it tonight but I'd like to see it a little clearer and I wouldn't oppose you know to table it if you thought it wasn't clear enough right now so that's all I have to say. Sacchet: Thank you Susan. Anybody else want to comment on this while we have a public hearing? This is your chance. Nope? Alright. I'll close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to commissioners. Comments, discussion. We sprinkled in some things that bordered on comments already. How about we start on this side. We started mostly on this side so far. Claybaugh: Yeah, with respect to comments, I would like to see the NURP pond moved to the north side in the existing barn location. I think in the final analysis, whether there's an overflow in there or not, which is highly unlikely, it's still going to end up in Bluff Creek. It's just going to take a different path to get there. With that, and I'd like to see the properties moved out of the primary zone and I think that would enable them to adjust that elevation. Get the retaining wall down. Eliminate some of those steps that they've identified from the garage to the main structure. I think there's a number of positive benefits by doing that so to summarize I'd like to table tonight and that would be the direction that I would provide them with. Sacchet: Just to clarify what you're envisioning Craig. Is the pond where the barn is, meaning still keeping that tree line intact around there to the north? 49 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Still keeping that tree line intact as much as possible, but I think that those were of lesser quality trees in that area. It doesn't mean that to be, it wouldn't be some impact obviously but the lesser of two evils. Sacchet: Thanks. Papke: Yeah, just to expound on that. I agree 100 percent. I think if we, if you look at the trade offs here, and again I understand you want to obey the letter of the law here and do canopy coverage and everything. But also touching on some of the resident comments on the old growth woods. The current proposal to do the, to chop out the, or remove the current overlay district involves removing some 25 inch diameter maples, which you know would break my heart. On the other hand, putting the pond where the barn is might involve removing some box elders and some elm trees, which as the property owner states, are probably not long lived anyway. So for myself, I would be very amenable to arguments from the applicant to removing some of the elm trees and box elder trees which are low quality in the barn area there, and trying to find some way of moving the pond in there and keeping the primary district line where it is. I think that could be a win/win scenario. Granted the applicant also voiced some concern that having the NURP pond along West 78`x Street allows you to set those homes back away from 78`s Street. I think in this particular situation, if you really want to stay at your currently building count, that might be the only viable solution to move the pond towards the back. Move the homes a little bit closer to the street and having that be the trade off. So that's all I have, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Feik: I agree with what's been said thus far. I would agree with tabling it for an additional reason in that I think given the number of conditions that we've got here, if we were to move this forward, I don't think it would look much like what we're looking at today. To try to conform with all those conditions so I would not be comfortable with moving forward with this based upon the scope of the conditions. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Bethany. Tjornhom: Not to be redundant I agree with everything that's been said so far. But I do want to say that I think it's a nice development so I hope it works out. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Rich. Slagle: A couple things. It is a great development. I'll even go as far to say great. I will throw out a thought and again fellow commissioners know I have an interest in trails and sidewalks. I will re-emphasize again to the applicant and to staff, I do think there's some merit to having a path go through the woods to connect to the trail. I think that would be a selling point to a perspective owners, but I think more importantly is, as we will see later, justification for either having sidewalks or not having sidewalks in different communities. We have a site that's going to be presented to us. One of the rationale if I 50 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 remember right is connecting to trails. And if this was a neighborhood of single family homes, I would tend to think that the park and rec group as well as staff might be more open if you will to connecting to that trail. So I only throw that out. I would be pleased to see that. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: Couple comments. I'm not opposed to a 26 foot wide street. I'm not going to reiterate things here. I'm just going to add to it. I'm not opposed to a 26 foot wide street so that is a point I think we should look at. The walk that parallels 78w Street that is proposed. I think it's proposed as a 6 foot. I'd like staff to work with the applicant. Are we okay with a 6 foot walk or do we want to match the 8 or 10 foot trail that is on the south side of the road? I'm not opposed to either way. I just want to make sure that we get what we want there. One other thing here, and I want to discuss this with fellow commissioners. Looking at their alternative plan that was handed to us, where it pushed the houses to the south, it still looks like we, you know if we look at that plan they have 20 feet from the primary zone. City still requires 40 feet, correct? Generous: That's what the ordinance says. Lillehaug: Yeah. So we're still looking at a variance here and I want to make sure everyone's aware of that. I guess. Slagle: If I can, would that variance fall in line with what staff is suggesting? I think it does. Lillehaug: It does. And then my question, I want to throw it out there is, I mean I liked it but why are we deviating from 40 feet and allowing 20 feet, and I don't, does someone have that answer for me? Because I don't. Sacchet: Well part of it, the way I understand it's a trade off. I mean we're preserving the northern, what is it? Third or what of the property in it's natural state. And as a tool to get to that end we have the PUD and yes, we have to put it into the medium density context because in the low density we can't do this clustering thing. So by doing the clustering, concentrating the density by taking it out totally out of that primary zone. I mean that's the benefit we're getting. Lillehaug: So can a development come in there, a single family and go into that primary zone and put a house? I'm just saying, why aren't we hold to 40 feet here? What is the trade off because I guess I'm, I want to understand and see it because I'm not seeing what the trade off is here. What development could come in there and go into that primary zone? Is there one? Generous: It hasn't been tested yet. 51 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Sacchet: We were fortunate in that we work consistently with people that were willing to work that trade off. So the question is then where do we make the delineation? How far do we go with what we're trading off? It's a give and take. I mean it's every case. Generous: Mr. Chairman, Lillehaug. Commissioner Lillehaug. The other thing is if you use that starting point of the 18 units, the twin home project, they potentially could have gone with 5-6 unit structures and been able to meet the setbacks. But then we wouldn't have had the consistency of development with the Pulte project that we directed them to try to accomplish using the 2 and 3 unit structures. So that would be another trade off or reason that we're looking at making this work. Lillehaug: I'm not totally sold on it but I'm just throwing it out there. I mean it's a great development. I'm just trying to justify reducing it from 40 feet to 20 feet, which is 50 percent. Claybaugh: Is it a given that we have to settle for the 20 feet? I mean we haven't seen this reconfigured. Generous: Right. Claybaugh: I would like to see it more mitigated as much as possible and not necessarily just hold on 20. I think that the potential is there and I think the number of units that are going to encroach on that are going to be mitigated as well. Sacchet: Yeah, and part of our role is to lean on the city's interest side with these type of things. Claybaugh: I mean once it's reconfigured I think we can all take a look at it and evaluate for ourselves if they've done due diligence and mitigate it to the degree that we feel that they can. Whether that ends up being 20 feet, 10 feet, we'll be able to see that when the plan's reconfigured. Lillehaug: I guess that would probably end my comments and I think Commissioner Claybaugh kind of summed that up for me. If the applicant comes back and shows that they're doing the best they can, I think. I'm not saying I would or wouldn't support 20 but I think if they come back and shows us. Slagle: Just one quick add on. If we do, as a consensus decide to table, certainly I would hope and expect that staff will minimize, reduce the number of conditions. Sacchet Right. Ed Hasek: Point of clarification? Sacchet: Yes. Go ahead. Point of clarification. 52 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Ed Hasek: Yes, you had, there'd been one request to try and look at a path through the woods down to the trail. Are we talking about a handicap accessible trail? Because there's a big difference between just a trail. Slagle: Sure, and I think that's a fair question and quite honestly I think staff, whether it's Matt or Todd Hoffman's group, you know. I just think it makes sense. Ed Hasek: Okay, if we can work with staff, that's fine. That's clarification. Slagle: I hope you do. Sacchet: A couple, are we done Steve? Lillehaug: Well I guess I'm sitting real close to him but I don't totally agree with putting a trail through the woods there. I think I would go with the applicant and say going out to 41 is adequate in my mind. Sacchet: Appreciate your point that out. That we're not necessarily unanimous on that one. From my end, I guess everybody else, did you have a chance? Yes? Then it's my turn. There are decidedly too many conditions. I mean this thing is not solid enough from that angle and especially some of the conditions where you have potentially very fundamental impact. I mean if we say they cannot cut into the primary zone, all the discussion we had here, well where would the pond go? Do they lose units? Would the street be more narrow? And I think that's fundamental enough that tabling is the appropriate thing to do. Now in terms of the framework of this, it's an excellent project. I mean you guys have really worked very hard. It shows. It's quality. And I believe that within that framework it's just going to get better. When you came in with the concept, it was in September was when it was, I think we actually, I might be wrong. I mean my memory sometimes gets a little murky but the way I recall it is we looked at this and then we thought that 18 units was probably going to be the balance so I don't have a problem with 18 units per se, but I also think that we made it relatively clear at that time that we wanted to preserve the northern tree line. So coming from that angle, I think what we actually discussed at that time is very much in line with what we're presenting here, also with what staff is recommending. Now, you made a point, you being the applicant, that you pretty exhaustively looked possibilities. Obviously you'd like to do it the way you have it here, but I think it'd be reasonable to look at the possibility that was suggesting in the pond where the barn is because indeed there are not that significant trees there. If you have to cut a little bit into the tree line, that's not going to be nearly as significant as where you're cutting into it now, and I do want to make a comment or maybe a compliment to your tree inventory. I mean this is fantastic. And it shows that you're cutting less than half the trees in terms of the ones you surveyed. But then you're looking at in terms of the caliper inches, if you add up the size of the trees, you do cut almost half. Little less than half so there we have a little different thing, and I do understand some of these trees are old. Some of them are not in the best shape. Some of them have been hit by lightning and what have you. However, just to balance that scale a little bit, and since I'm the person here on this group that pays attention to trees, looking. If you 53 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 look at the real significant trees, if you define real significant being 24 inches or more, there are 26 of them. And you're cutting 11 so there you're about a third. Closer to half. Kind of inbetween there. If you look at the real big ones, 30 inches and above, there are actually 11 trees there that are 30 inches or bigger. We're talking really old growth and I share the concern that the resident comment brought up. Out of those 11 trees, you're actually cutting 5. Cutting half of those. So if you look at that, the bigger the tree the more you're cutting. If you look at it in a different way and that came too in our discussion is what kind of trees it is. Because there's a difference in terms of value of box elder and an oak or a maple. If you look at maples, it's a little bit disappointing. You have about 24 maples that were surveyed. You're cutting 16. Cutting two-thirds of them. Oaks, you have surveyed 7. You're cutting 3. Again, just slightly less than half, so when we look at the real significant trees, I would conclude you're cutting a significant amount because they're standing where you're building. And some of them actually stand where you're cutting into the primary zone. I don't think there's much we can do about that so I'm not trying to make a case. Usually I try to find some trees and say well here's a good tree, why don't you save it. The only thing I can say, there's a couple where you're cutting in the primary zone. However, where this has weight and significance in terms of our discussion here tonight is that it gives, in my opinion additional impetus to preserve the primary land more significantly. Because we do take a lot of the significant trees out. So that is something I'd like to see also considered as we move this forward. I do support tabling this. I still feel a little awkward about this retaining wall. It seems, but I understand, appreciate your explaining with the ponding and all, how that plays together so that makes a little more sense. And again, this going to medium density per se in terms of how we're talking about it, is our lever to actually preserve the sense, the natural sensitive area. To have that trade off. To get to the clustering. Obviously it has to go somewhere to keep the balance of the development. That's my comments with that. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair, I have another comment I'd like to make. Sacchet: Yes, please go ahead Craig. Claybaugh: I was just looking and talking with my fellow commissioner here. The applicant had touched on the possibility of sprinkling all the units and if code supports it eliminating that hammerhead tum around. I'd like to at least point that out to possibly justifying those units a little further to the east if that hammerhead was taken out would help mitigate some of that exposure that you have in the primary setback area. And also possibly take a look at unit number 9 and possibly eliminating one of those units and justifying unit 7 and 8. Swinging that building around with two 2 unit buildings. Just between relocating the NURP pond and possibly justifying units 1 to 3 a little more to the east and eliminating unit number 9 and swinging 7 and 8 over, you're out one unit but I think you've gone a long ways towards mitigating almost all of the encroachment. That's all the comments I have. Sacchet: Thank you Craig. I'd like to have a motion please. 54 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Feik: I'll make a motion. I move that we table the application in it's entirety for Plowshares Development and Susan McAllister for 2930 West 78th Street. Sacchet: Got a motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: Second. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for Highlands of Bluff Creek, Plowshares Development at 2930 West 78f Street in it's entirety. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Sacchet: How about we take a 5 minute recess just to stretch. So we reconvene by 10:15. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions of staff. Papke: Yeah, I've got a clarification question. Is there any issue? The language here is all lots of record in existence and parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a building has been constructed. Is there any issue with the term building here? I mean if I have an outhouse on this property, do I get grandfathered in the way this is worded? Generous: For that outhouse, yeah unless we wanted, yes. Unless you say principal building. Principal structure. Papke: That's my only question. Is this sufficiently unambiguous that we're not going to run into problems with interpretation later on? If it's a tree house or whatever, you know. I mean does that constitute a developed property if I've got a tree house on my, you know. Generous: That would seem'as it says building. Now a principal building or principal structure may be a more accurate term because you have to have a principal structure before you can have accessory structures, etc. Papke: There you go. Generous: So that's a way to do it. Sacchet: So it would say principal structure that would. 55 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 19, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for PUD 2003-3, located at 2930 West 78th Street, Applicant Plowshares Development LLC and Susan McAllister - Planning Case No. 04-01, to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to befo7 me 4 this 1ci day of r f 20v.. Notary Publ' gAengWorms\affidavit.doc Irm KIM T MEUVVISSEN i' kAmPUNIC -Mior mta CARVER COUNTY My Commission Expires 1(311M NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Highlands of Bluff Creek Planned Unit Development PLANNING CASE #04-01 (aka 2003-3) APPLICANT: Plowshares Development, LLC Susan McAllister LOCATION: 2930 West 78`" Street NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Plowshares Development, LLP/Susan McAllister, is requesting a Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18 -unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback Requirements on 6 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. The property is located at 2930 West 78`" Street (northeast corner of West 78`" Street and Highway 41). What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and 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 Generous at 952-227-1131 or e-mail bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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 December 25, 2003. City Review Procedure Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. Staff prepares a report on the subject application. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Concept Planned Unit Development #2003-3 Public Hearing Notice Area (500 feet) � ( K Ywf r IVA ALFONSO & CHRISTINE M CORREA ALLAN D FISCHER ALLEN K JR & JENNIFER R LARSON 2828 CENTURY TRL 7641 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL 7647 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 ALLEN M ODEGARD 2841 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 AMY E FISHER 2836 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 ARBORETUM VILLAGE COMMUNITY BARBARA ANN MILLER 815 NORTHWEST PKY MN 55121- N 7661 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN EAGAN M SUITE CHANHASSEN M 55317-4425 BRENDA C BROWN 7634 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 BRYAN M FRITZ 2838 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 DALE C & KIM R HOWELL 7644 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 DAVID L BUSS & ERIN KAY STEINKE 7638 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 GARY & JENNIFER SANDQUIST 7711 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 553174426 HREIDAR & ELINOR A AGUSTSSON 2836 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 BRIAN K MOE 7700 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 BYRON A & MARY M OLSON 7331 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8038 DALE R & JEAN A RUSCH 2856 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 DEBBRA C HILL 7640 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 553174424 GUILLERMO E & JAMIE A ARIAS 7633 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 553174422 JACOB O CROOKS & MICHAEL A & RENATE E CROOKS 7450 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8037 AMYIBOEHM 7702 COACH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 BRANDON B WAGNER 7659 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317.4425 BRIAN W SHEPARD & NICHOLE M WHETSTINE 7636 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 CATHERINE A HOLTE 7630 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 DARRYL E COSTELLO PO BOX 34 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-0034 ERIK M JOHNSON PO BOX 545 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0545 HELEN R HUBER 2828 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434 JANET K OPHEIM 7704 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 JASON & JENNIFER VEUM JEFFRY KARL RUSSELL JENNIFER A VONESCHEN 7629 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR 7632 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR 7643 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 553174421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 JOAN B DYGERT JOHN C SCHIELE & HOLLY J BENTZ JOHN F ALTENBERND 2824 CENTURY TRL 2848 CENTURY TRL 7639 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 JOHN M WIGEN 7625 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 KELLY A PEDERSON & JOHN H & JUDY A PEDERSON 7627 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 LARRY A & VIVIAN S NELSON 2832 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 LINDA LEE SIMON 7706 COACH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 MATTHEW J NARDO 7650 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 MICHAEL B HERMAN 2921 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4423 MICHAEL W SCHACHTERLE & CRYSTAL E SCHACHTERLE 2852 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 NANCYJEANLARSON 7704 COACH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA CORP 815 NORTHWEST PKY SUITE 140 EAGAN MN 55121-1580 KATHRYN ELLEN GRIEGER 2923 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4423 KELLY KAY SCHUFT 7702 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 LEAH L RUDNICKI & JACOB C & BETH A RUDNICKI 2837 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 LISA A ALT 7703 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 MATTHEW L MAETZOLD & JILL K WASHBURN 7613 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 MICHAEL D & AMY L ARMBRUST 7630 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 MOLLY J LYSFJORD 7652 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 PAUL J & KELLY K RAIMONDO 7632 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA KEITH D TURNQUIST 7701 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 KIMBERLY B KOZAR 7629 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 LEE A AMIOT & JENNIFER M SCHMOLL 7617 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 MARY LJOHNSON 7633 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 MERALD A & ELAINE A KROGSTAD 7460 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8037 MICHAEL D & JANICE M CHOCKLAN 7651 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 NANCY A GALLAGHER 7705 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 PHILLIP A GROTHE 7628 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 C/O REAL ESTATE OFFICE ROBERT M & JILL R SOMERS 319 15TH AVE SE 2839 COACH CT 424 DON HOWE BLDG CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55455-0118 ROBERTA J RONBECK & JOAN L SCOTT R PASS & ELIZABETH D RONBECK RYAN C BROWN & SARA M RYAN RAINEY-PASS 2840 CENTURY TRL 7642 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL 2844 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 SHANNON M HOGAN 7651 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 553174425 SHIRLEY A FORS 2820 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 SUSAN MCALLISTER 2930 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4501 TRACY J DOHENY 7634 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 WESLEY A DAHLSTROM 7637 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 WILLIAM E HART 7653 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 SHAWN R KERRIGAN 7648 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 STEVEN W RABY & MARY E FRASCZAK 7621 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 THERESA A LINN 7635 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 VICTOR D & KATHERINE T OATES 2832 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434 WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH 7801 PARK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9200 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SHEILA K DEWOLF 2830 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 553174434 SUMIKA CHAT 7649 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 THOMAS J SYLVESTER 7632 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 VINH Q DO NGUYEN 7657 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 WILLIAM A & IRENE V HINES 7631 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 553174422 My OF 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone. 952.227.1180 Fax 952.227 1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park A Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227 1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952 227,1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227 1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax 952 227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 1 -OL MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: April 26, 2004 SUBJ: Highlands of Bluff Creek (Planning Case 04-01) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development Within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 16 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 16 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 16 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback, Highlands of Bluff Creek — Planning Case No. 04-01. City Council tabled this item on March 22, 2004, to permit the applicant to revise the plan to maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Bluff Creek primary zone and due to concerns over the safety of the proposed access to the site off West 78`s Street. City Council asked staff and the developer to take another look at relocating the proposed private street access of Century Trail. The applicant has revised the plan reducing the number of units from 18 to 16 units. As part of the revisions to the development plan, the following issues were re- examined: Access — Staff had a traffic engineer review the development's traffic impacts. Their review showed that the proposed access on West 78`" Street would not negatively impact traffic. Additionally, staff reviewed the potential for access to Century Trail and determined that not only would the access not comply with city standards, but it would also negatively impact the existing housing in the area. • Pond — Staff requested that the applicant review the relocation of the pond to the northern portion of the site. Based on their engineer's review, this would require the elimination of three additional units. • Grading — Staff continues to work with the applicant to investigate ways to reduce the amount of grading on site. Specifically, staff is investigating whether the housing units and ultimately the road could be lowered. The development's ability to reduce grading is limited by the requirement that the lowest floor elevation remain two (2) feet above the flood elevation of the pond. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Mr. Todd Gerhardt April 26, 2004 Highlands of Bluff Creek Planning Case 04-01 Page 2 Staff is recommending approval of the revised development. Due to the reduction in the number of units from 18 to 16, staff has prepared a revised staff report. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment requires a 2/3`a majority vote of City Council. City Council approval for the preliminary PUD, Site Plan, Preliminary Plat, Variance and Conditional Use Permit requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING CONIMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 6, 2004 and on March 2, 2004, with a revised plan, dated February 3, 2004. The Planning Commission voted 5 in favor and 2 abstentions to deny the land use amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat with variance, conditional use permit and site plan review. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Since the plans have been revised, staff has prepared a review of the revised plan. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Highlands at Bluff Creek development are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 6.52 ac. Baseline canopy coverage 42% or 2.75 ac. Minimum canopy coverage required 30% or 1.96 ac. Proposed tree preservation 32% or 2.06 ac. Developer meets minimum canopy coverage allowed. Bufferyard planting are required along West 78'e Street, Highway 41 and the east property line. Although existing vegetation along the highway is proposed to be preserved, the developer is including additional landscaping in that area. Mr. Todd Gerhardt April 26, 2004 Highlands of Bluff Creek Planning Case 04-01 Page 3 Bufferyard requirements are as shown in the table: Landscaping Item lZetluired Proposed Bufferyard B* — South 9 overstory trees 17 overstory trees property line, 440', 13 understory trees 24 understory trees buffer width 20' 22 shrubs 27 shrubs Bufferyard B* — West 5 overstory trees 5 overstory trees property line, 250', 8 understory trees 9 understory trees buffer width 20' 13 shrubs 18 shrubs Bufferyard B* — East 5 overstory trees 7 overstory trees property line, 250', 8 understory trees 12 understory trees buffer width 20' 1 13 shrubs 16 shrubs Boulevard Trees — West 15 overstory trees 6 overstory trees 78th Street, 1 per 30' Applicant meets minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings with the exception of boulevard trees along West 78h Street. The applicant is unable to plant the required number due to the area along the pond that will require a fence along the path and eliminate any planting space. The east bufferyard is proposed to be planted on public property. Staff recommends allowing this with the condition that the developer and homeowner association be responsible for all replacements and maintenance responsibilities for the plantings. The evergreens in the east bufferyard should be moved uphill, without interfering with underground utilities, to alleviate any headlight shine into the neighboring home. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The northern portion of the site is enveloped by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Primary Zone extends to the edge of the tree line. City code requires that all structures maintain a 40 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 20 feet of the setback. Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3, which are 20 feet from the Primary Zone boundary, do not meet the required 40 -foot setback. Grading is proposed within the first 20 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone must be preserved. Due to site constraints, the location of West 78th Street, the need for a stormwater pond on site and the location of the Primary Zone boundary, staff recommends a variance that would allow a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary with no grading occurring within the first 10 feet of the setback. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time." The note regarding positive drainage should be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage Mr. Todd Gerhardt April 26, 2004 Highlands of Bluff Creek Planning Case 04-01 Page 4 and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. Erosion and Sediment Control Riprap and geotextile fabric should be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the stormwater basin. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-duty mono -mono silt fence with 4 -foot spacing of metal T - posts and 1" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light-duty silt fence should also be installed between the townhomes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area Steeper than 3:1 7 days is not actively being worked.) 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a stormwater 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 facility. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. Surface Water Management Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on residential townhome development rates of $1,967/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 5.66 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $11,133. The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Medium density townhome developments have a connection charge of $3,824 per developable Mr. Todd Gerhardt April26, 2004 Highlands of Bluff Creek Planning Case 04-01 Page 5 acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $21,644 for the proposed development. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $32,777. Other Agencies 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. Lot Tabulation: LotBlock Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.) Ll 131 3,975 46 86 L2 131 3,115 36 86 L3 131 3,859 36 86 Ll B2 3,893 33 86 L2 B2 3,125 36 86 L3 132 3,965 46 86 Ll 133 3,929 46 85 L2 133 3,079 36 86 L3 133 3,997 46 87 Ll 134 3,974 46 86 L2 B4 3,115 36 86 L3 B4 3,975 46 86 Ll B5 4,280 46 90 L2 B5 3,354 36 87 L3 135 3,354 36 87 L4 135 4,224 46 87 Outlot A 79,672 # NA NA Outlot B 107,559 # NA NA TH 41 37,374 Total 1284,007 # The Outlot boundary shall be adjusted to correspond with the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary. The Planned Unit Development does not have minimum lot sizes. The overall density is 2.83 units per acre. Mr. Todd Gerhardt April 26, 2004 Highlands of Bluff Creek Planning Case 04-01 Page 6 SITE ACCESS From an engineering and safety standpoint, the steepness required for the private street to access off of Century Trail would make the access less safe than if it came off of West 78i' Street. This is because the required grade for the private street to access off of Century Trail is nearly 14%. The elevation of the private street within the site is set by the elevation of the townhomes on the south side of the street. The basement elevation of these townhomes must be two feet above the flood elevation of the adjacent pond. This is a Watershed District requirement and it applies whether the townhomes are walk -out units or not. The applicant's engineer has provided a road design that shows a required street grade of nearly 14% for the private street to tie into Century Trail. The maximum private street grade allowed by City Code is 10%. For comparison purposes, the maximum allowable public street grade is 7%. The private street grade that would be required to access off of Century Trail would be nearly double the maximum public street grade. This raises obvious concerns with road icing and the ability of residential traffic to stop on a street this steep prior to the intersection of Century Trail. There are also non -engineering related concerns with moving the site access to Century Trail. Since the March 22 Council meeting, staff has received a letter from the resident who lives just north of the City owned park/open-space land which the private street would go through to connect with Century Trail. This resident is opposed to having the private street connect with Century Trail. Also, in order for the private street to come off of Century Trail, the applicant would need to purchase a piece of park/open-space land from the City. Staff has concerns with potentially selling off this property because it was originally dedicated as permanent open space to the City. Moving the roadway would bisect this open space and add traffic to an area that was meant to be permanent open space. The applicant has also expressed concern over the time it would take to negotiate a price for the land purchase. For the above reasons, staff does not feel that the access location to the site should be moved. Staff also took a second look at the proposed site access location off of West 781' Street. The proposed access is in the same location as the existing driveway access to the property. The existing access was installed by MnDOT as part of the Highway 5 project and is located just east of the raised concrete median at the intersection of Highway 41 and W. 78`" Street. The access was designed to provide full access to the property from either direction. The worst potential traffic conflict at the proposed access to the site would be the eastbound traffic attempting to tum left into the site and having to cross the westbound traffic lane during p.m. peak periods. MnDOT took traffic counts for the Highway 41/West 78`s Street intersection the week of April 12, 2004. Staff enlisted the services of a professional traffic engineer who evaluated potential left tum traffic conflicts into the site. Based on 16 townhomes, a conservative (high) estimate of traffic making a left tum into the development during the p.m. peak hour is 11 vehicles. The traffic counts indicate that the westbound p.m. peak hour traffic flow, which would be the conflict for the entering vehicles, is 30 vehicles. These numbers do not indicate any potential for operational problems with regard to access to the site. There will be approximately one vehicle every six minutes entering the site that could be potentially opposed by one vehicle every two minutes driving west past the site. Mr. Todd Gerhardt April 26, 2004 Highlands of Bluff Creek Planning Case 04-01 Page 7 It should also be pointed out that MnDOT has reviewed the plans for this development. The MnDOT comments have not stipulated any type of restriction on the West 78`s Street access to the site nor have they recommended the addition of a turn lane into the site. In summary, it does not appear that the existing traffic or the development -generated traffic will be great enough to require modifications to the proposed access location. RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION Staff is currently working with Westwood Church on concept plans for the extension of West 78`h Street, west of Highway 41. Because of the existing alignment of the Highway 41/West 78`s Street intersection on the east side of Highway 41 and the property line location of Westwood Church on the west side, the existing West 78`s Street intersection will need to be realigned to the north. This will require an additional area of right-of-way in the southwest corner of the site to be dedicated to the City from the applicant on the final plat. This right-of-way dedication will not impact the proposed lots. The exact size of the required right-of-way will be determined at the time of final plat. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the attached motions approving the development (Land Use Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan). ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Plans 2. Recommended Motions 3. Findings of Fact 4. Letter from Curtis R. Neft to Matt Saam dated 4/15/04 5. Letter from Dale and Jean Rusch to Robert E. Generous dated 4/12/04 6. Letter from Susan McAllister to Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission dated 4/19/04 g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-01 - highlands of bluff amMexecutive summary revised.doc Highlands of Bluff Creek RECOMMENDED MOTIONS Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following five motions for Planning Project #04-01, Highlands of Bluff Creek, and adoption of the findings of fact. A. "The City Council approves the Land Use Amendment from Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density contingent upon final development approval of the Planned Unit Development and Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Land Use Amendment. B. "The City Council grants conceptual and preliminary approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development — Residential, PUD -R." C. "The City Council grants Preliminary Plat approval of the proposed development for Highlands of Bluff Creek with a variance to permit a 20 foot setback from the Bluff Creek Primary Zone, plans prepared by Westwood Development Services, Inc., dated 04/02/04, subject to the following conditions. 1. The plat shall show a property line creating Outlots A and B which common boundary shall follow the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary. 2. Final Plat yproval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to West 78 Street. 3. The applicant shall submit association covenants to the city for review prior to recording. The association shall be responsible for the maintenance of any common elements of the development. 4. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication on fifteen of the sixteen lots based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single-family home on the property. The park fee, using 2004 park fees, is $2,200 per unit, which shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. 5. One tree shall be added to the landscape plan in the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 4. 6. Applicant shall be responsible for all development plantings located on public property. The applicant shall submit to the city a maintenance agreement signed by the homeowners association to assume responsibility of the plantings once the development is completed. Evergreens shall be located at the end of the cul-de-sac and positioned so as to alleviate headlight glare into the neighboring home. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any work commencing. 8. The developer shall enter into a Development Contract/PUD agreement with the City. The Development Design Standards shall be incorporated in the development contract. 9. All structures shall maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. 10. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). Outlot A may be dedicated to the city to be preserved as open space. 11. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 12. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24- hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The applicant must submit storm sewer sizing calculations for staff review. 13. Staff recommends that Type 11 silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and Type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. The silt fence shall be removed once the site has been revegetated. 14. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat. 15. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 16. The total amount due payable to the City for the additional 15units will be $44,910 (15 @ $2,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per 2 unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. 17. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. 18. The applicant must be aware that the public sewer and watermain require a preconstruction meeting before the building permit issuance. 19. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc. 20. Add the following City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2109, 2201, 3101, 3104, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300 and 5301. 21. Add a stop sign at the exit side of the access. 22. Add a street light at the access. 23. On the utility plan: a. Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. b. Removetdelete the last note. c. Call out water -main fittings. d. Show sanitary sewer pipe class & slope and watermain pipe class. e. Watermain shall be 8" PVC C-900 pipe. 24. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Last storm manhole discharging to the pond must be a 3 -foot sump. 25. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. 3 26. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshall. 27. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design. 28. CBMII-6 shall have a two -foot sump since it is the last structure that is road accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond. 29. The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all times." The note regarding positive drainage shall be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. 30. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over the proposed storm water pond. 31. Riprap and geotextile fabric shall be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. 32. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light duty silt fence shall be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. 33. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 34. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: T of Slope Stabilized within Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 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. 35. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 36. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $32,777. 37. 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 38. Additional area of right-of-way in the southwest comer of the site shall be dedicated to the City for West 78th Street on the final plat. This right-of-way dedication will not impact the proposed lots. The exact size of the required right-of-way will be determined at the time of final plat." D. "The City Council approves Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. The development must comply with the approved Planned Unit Development, Site Plan and Subdivision requirements for the property. 2. All structures shall maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. 3. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). E. "The City Council approves Site Plan, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated 04/02/04, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The applicant shall work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. 3. The applicant shall submit a foundation planting plan for city review and approval prior to final plat approval. 4. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 square feet in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement, property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 5. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire -resistive construction. 6. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 7. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures." (Approval) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT IN RE: Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review. On Manch 22, 2004, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development — Residential rezoning (PUD -R) for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. The City Council reviewed the minutes of the March 2, 2004 Planning Commission meeting at which a public hearing was conducted on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The City Council now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A. 4. Land Use Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and is consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. C) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance with the approval of the setback variance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: a) The proposed development preserves the majority of desirable site characteristics and open space, and protects sensitive environmental features, including mature trees, creeks and wetlands. b) The proposed development is an efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through the clustering of the development on the site and the use of a private street. C) The proposed development is a high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. d) The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. e) The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. f) The proposed development preserves the majority of the Bluff Creek Corridor primary zone. g) The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not affordable housing. h) The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use of the clustering of buildings. i) The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. 6. Subdivision a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance subject to approval of the variance and revisions as recommended in the staff report. b) The subdivision meets all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. c) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan. d) 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. e) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter. i) The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage. g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will dedicate all appropriate new easements. h) The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are available or will be constructed with the development. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: (1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. (2) Lack of adequate roads. (3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. (4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 7. Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: a) The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b) The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c) The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d) The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e) The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f) The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g) The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h) The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i) The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j) The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k) The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. 4 1) The proposed development meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback variance. 8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to develop the site and preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The site constraints of the primary zone and West 78`' Street lead to the need for a variance. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with surrounding development. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but is due to site constraints. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a) The proposed development is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements; c) The proposed development preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable subject to the revisions of the staff report by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developments or developing areas; d) The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space subject to the revisions recommended in the staff report with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: (1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; (2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; (3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and (4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 10. The planning report #04-01 dated March 2, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. 0 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. PLANNING .ENGINEERING .SURVEYING April 15, 2004 I have attached a sketch of the site showing the pond located on the north side of the development per our conversation April 13, 2004 and fax sent April 14, 2004. Moving the pond will require the outlet elevation to be lower in order to collect the water that would drain directly to the pond on our current site plan with the pond located on the south end of the property. Essentially I moving the pond to the north requires forcing storm water against grade in tum requiring deep storm sewer in the street and lowering the outlet elevation. 1 have also attached a "PONDSIZ", i.e. NURP, calculation sheet showing a required treatment volume of 0.37 ae-ft. However, due to the small size of the pond the required volume would have to be increase to accommodate the city's requirement of an average depth of 3 feet. The City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan states a phosphorus removal efficiency requirement of 50-70% based on a Walker "PONDNET' analysis. I have attached a "PONDNET" analysis for the proposed pond demonstrating a removal efficiency of 63%. The average depth requirement of 3 feet is the controlling factor for the size of the pond. The Minnesota Department of Transportation requires that the proposed peak discharge rate to the ROW to be equal to or less than the existing condition for the 10 and 100 -year storm events. Moving the pond to the north will increase the amount of direct drainage to West 78^' Street. On a previous site layout with the pond located on the north side of the development the ponding calculations indicated that the outlet for the pond would have to routed to the wetland located north of the site in order to maintain this rate control requirement. The impacts of discharging to the north would entail open cut installation of storm sewer from the development all the way to the existing wetland, clearing a path of trees 25 feet in width. The retaining wall on the sketch is 12 feet in maximum height, which may be considered a safety issue. In order to remove the retaining wall a 3:1 slope would have to be extended from the north edge of the roadway to the south 45 feel The pond would become long and narrow increasing the required size of the pond and removing an additional unit to the west and a 29 -inch maple tree, which would otherwise be saved. Moving the pond to the location illustrated on the attached sketch would have dramatic impacts to the development. Three additional units would have to be removed. A large retaining wall would be required along the south side of the pond. The storm sewer system would be deep in the streets creating an undesirable maintenance and utility conflict condition. Clearing and tree removal would be required through the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Moving the pond would result in the termination of this development. Please Contact me if you have any questions at 952-906-7405 dd Sincerely, WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. Curtis R. Neft Design Engineer, EIT cc: Todd Sii� . 8 enclosures Deiglvng the fume Todar..Lme 1972 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, IAN 553" Matt Saam Project Engineer Phone: 952.937-5150 City of Chanhassen Fax: 952.937.5822 Toll free: 1-888.937-5150 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 E-mail: wps@vNNtwoadpEcom Chanhassen, MN 55317 TWIN CITIES/METRO Re: Highland of Bluff Creek ST. CLOUD Ref 2003 -2566.00 -CO aRAINERD Dear Matt I have attached a sketch of the site showing the pond located on the north side of the development per our conversation April 13, 2004 and fax sent April 14, 2004. Moving the pond will require the outlet elevation to be lower in order to collect the water that would drain directly to the pond on our current site plan with the pond located on the south end of the property. Essentially I moving the pond to the north requires forcing storm water against grade in tum requiring deep storm sewer in the street and lowering the outlet elevation. 1 have also attached a "PONDSIZ", i.e. NURP, calculation sheet showing a required treatment volume of 0.37 ae-ft. However, due to the small size of the pond the required volume would have to be increase to accommodate the city's requirement of an average depth of 3 feet. The City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan states a phosphorus removal efficiency requirement of 50-70% based on a Walker "PONDNET' analysis. I have attached a "PONDNET" analysis for the proposed pond demonstrating a removal efficiency of 63%. The average depth requirement of 3 feet is the controlling factor for the size of the pond. The Minnesota Department of Transportation requires that the proposed peak discharge rate to the ROW to be equal to or less than the existing condition for the 10 and 100 -year storm events. Moving the pond to the north will increase the amount of direct drainage to West 78^' Street. On a previous site layout with the pond located on the north side of the development the ponding calculations indicated that the outlet for the pond would have to routed to the wetland located north of the site in order to maintain this rate control requirement. The impacts of discharging to the north would entail open cut installation of storm sewer from the development all the way to the existing wetland, clearing a path of trees 25 feet in width. The retaining wall on the sketch is 12 feet in maximum height, which may be considered a safety issue. In order to remove the retaining wall a 3:1 slope would have to be extended from the north edge of the roadway to the south 45 feel The pond would become long and narrow increasing the required size of the pond and removing an additional unit to the west and a 29 -inch maple tree, which would otherwise be saved. Moving the pond to the location illustrated on the attached sketch would have dramatic impacts to the development. Three additional units would have to be removed. A large retaining wall would be required along the south side of the pond. The storm sewer system would be deep in the streets creating an undesirable maintenance and utility conflict condition. Clearing and tree removal would be required through the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Moving the pond would result in the termination of this development. Please Contact me if you have any questions at 952-906-7405 dd Sincerely, WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. Curtis R. Neft Design Engineer, EIT cc: Todd Sii� . 8 enclosures Deiglvng the fume Todar..Lme 1972 FT I April 12, 2004 Robert E. Generous, AICP Senior Planner City of Chanhassen Dear Mr. Generous: We live in an Arboretum Village Club Home at 2856 Century Trail. Our townhouse is the most westerly of the one level townhouses in the Pulte Addition and is adjacent to the proposed Plowshares Inc. addition. It has been brought to our attention that Plowshares Inc. is proposing that an outlet road be put in east of their proposed addition and east of their property line. This road would encroach on and across the green space that Pulte dedicated to the city. We are strongly opposed to an outlet road in this location. It would create noise, fumes, and the distraction of headlights in addition to destroying the tranquility of the green space. If Plowshares Inc. needs the outlet road let them devise a plat plan using their own property! Thank you for your consideration. We are, ?&� /�� ia4leti?�Jean Rusch 2856 Century Trail Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 Susan McAllister April 19, 2004 Honorable Mayor Thomas Furlong, Members of the City Council, Planning Commission Members, City of Chanhassen, 7700 Market Blvd., Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 2 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Hand Delivered Due to my failing health from a serious car accident December 30, 2002 I had no choice but to sell my property. Last June I had a discussion about my decision to sell with someone from the City Planning Department, who told me they believed I could get 24 units on my site. Then I asked the planning department to move forward with the language that would allow low density guided land to be able to develop in the Primary Zone but Kate told me it would be less problematic to just up -zone my land to medium density, so with hesitation I went along with it. I hope I didn't make a mistake. Then things seriously changed down to a plan shown for 21 units, then down to 19 units, then down to IS units, then down to 17 units, then down to 16 units, then possibly 15 units. Uli said he would go for 19 units if we can fit them in. Obviously the developer can't because of the amount of Primary Zone. It will be interesting to see the intent of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan and the Bluff Creek Ordinance working in conjunction with each other as it relates to my development. It is the most classic example yet to go through the development process since the conception of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. I'm sure many if not all landowners affected by the Primary Zone will be tuned in as to how it works for me or possibly works against me, as it will be the same outcome for them also. For the record there are two issues I wish you to know about; 1. The Bluff Creek Ordinance; It is problematic for more than one reason but the most important reason is that I had no idea how much developable land I had because the Primary Zone is not delineated until the development is approved. 1 based how to sell the property on the number of units I was initially told I could have, which was around 24 units. The norm is to market the property at the going rate per acre, but with the Primary Zone not being delineated until after a development is approved is a definite problem. 2. The second issue is I agreed only the North East comer of my property, which is 9/10 of an acre, was to be put in the Primary Zone as the Management Plan called for under the "Watershed Vision and Goals" Section pg. S. and also under the "Recommendation" Section pg. 64. When the ordinance was written it allowed the Planning Director to make the delineation on the Primary Zone which changed the Steering Committee's recommendation of 300' to ultimately give me only about 1.47 developable acres out of 6.5 acres. Had I known this would happen I can guarantee you I never would have been a part of the Steering Committee, and I can just about guarantee none of the other land owners would have wanted any part of it either. I should not be punished for having an arbitrarily large amount of Primary Zone on my property, when Pulte was allowed to remove at least 50' — 60' of Primary Zone. What was allowed to be removed was the great oaks and maples along their North East section which runs along the south side of the Bluff Creek Headwaters. Unfortunately, the only thing left is invasive Buckthorn, one tree deep in that area. I felt compelled to take down my barn to force the 7 years remaining of the Petting Farm tUP to be eliminated. (Please see exhibit A). Now, with the farmstead eliminated I feel you can finally compare me to Arboretum Village (which was the majority of land that originated with my farm) with an overall density of 5.6 units per acre and net density according to your printout of "Residential Development Statistics" for Arboretum Village of 6.42 units per acres. (Please see Exhibit B.) 2930 West 78'" Street Chanhassen, MN 55317-4501 952474-5099 Pg. 2 According to your printout of "Residential Development Statistics" (Please see exhibit B). I have 3.86 net acres, to develop x 5.7 (Arboretum Village's average net density according to the city's narrative for the Highlands of Bluff Creek packet, dated March 2, 2004 pg. 3 of 20) = 22.002 units for my site. Or: 3.86 net developable acres x 6.42 (Arboretum Village's net density exhibit B) = 24.78 Or. 3.86 net developable acres x 6 (according to exhibit C) = 23.16 units on my property. (D+E) There are 3 entities involved, the city, the developer and Susan McAllister, land owner. The way this has been playing itself out the ci will get "the Big Woods" aka the "Primary Zone" in its virgin state (a good deal for them). The developer will be getting at least 16 units or possibly 18 units according to the ghost plan along with a beautiful peaceful wooded site which will allow them to command a higher price per townhome. (A good deal for them also). Susan will get ripped off. Her land will sell for much less than what it should command. (Not a good deal for her). Example, Vasserman Ridge paid $12 million for 8 acres. In summary, the problem is an interpretation of the Bluff Creek Ordinance that is inconsistent with the neighboring property which results in a governmental taking of private property without due process of law or compensation for the land owner. The remedy could be; • The city gets the Primary Zone in almost its virgin state from the 1850's. • The developer gets 16 -18 units built and a site that commands a higher price point due to fewer units plus the "virgin Big Woods'. The Big Woods was what Chanhassen was originally known as. Chan is the Dakota meaning for tree and hassan is the Dakota meaning for berryjuice. Chanhassen received its official name around August 22, 1853 and this just all fits so beautifully. This would be a very good selling point for the developer. The city could possibly require lower park fees to the developer in exchange for a lower unit count build out. • Susan gets paid $40,000/unit from the city over and above what the developer was actually allowed to build up to 22 to 24 units. (To be consistent with Arboretum Village, which is within 500' of her project). In essence the city would pay Susan $40,000/unit that she couldn't build in order for the city to have the "virgin Big Woods" for passive park land. This last scenario in my opinion is a win/win for the three entities involved and also for the community. Finally, I would support the thought of re -naming the development "The Big Woods at Bluff Creek" as it seems appropriate for this particular site. Respe Ily, McAllister, Landowner cc: Kroiss Development 47 w i� ILI COMPREHENSIVEPLAAL_ Regardless of a property's land use designation, properties not served by urban services shall not be rezoned to a zoning category consistent with the land use designation until such time as urban services are available. Current zoning of a parcel with a less intensive land use de nal ion, may remain. Intensification oT ain-d uses may only happen with the provision of urban servic MUSA Exemption Based on the limited need for municipal urban services the following areas will not be extended municipal services, the Minnewashta Regional Park, Camp Tanadoona and the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, but they may be brought in if petitioned. Maximum Use of Allowable Density Based on the city's housing goals and the city's participation in the Livable Communities Act, the city has the right to deny approval of any project that does not meet the minimum density allowed in the land use designation. Reasons for denial may include deviation from city requirements, or off- setting goals of the city. PUD Allowance The PUD zoning district may allow up to 25% support or ancillary uses, if deemed appropriate by the City Council. MUSA STAGING The following is the city proposed staging plan and documentation. This plan takes into consideration the land uses that were approved by the city as a part of the Bluff Creek and Highway 5 Studies. The land uses encourage compact contiguous development. It efficiently utilizes the existing and proposed infrastructure and capital investment. The staging plan acknowledges the character of existing development and the desire to be consistent with the Metro Regional Growth Strategy. LAND USE GOALS GOALJ CV M I I-ATFD �f" 1 LIF JI DIfJ9nN wiiK'1+ fficb chieve a mixture of development which will�,ry� tfvlAl4 assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax base. GIO-WTJ 1ME3AIN DISCUSSION unfit -rt ELrraffv�E.iJ Z'Nr FR PANA , Chanhassen's early development was predominately single family residential. Industrial and commercial uses as well as different housing types have been developing since the early 1990s. The City of Chanhassen is achieving diversity in housing types and attraction of commercial and industrial uses that assist the tax base and provide local services for it residents. POLICIES • Develop and maintain the city's land use plan so it is utilized as a fundamental tool for directing the community's growth. • Recognizing some uses pay their way in terms of the property taxes they generate and some uses do not. Chanhassen will strive for a mixture of development which will assure its financial well being. • Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line and at the same time Chanhassen will plan the reasonable and orderly expansion of the MUSA line to meet its need for additional developable land. • Encourage low density residential development it appropriate areas of the community in a manner that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single family neighborhoods while promoting the establishment of new neighborhoods of similar quality. • The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide for a full range of housing opportunities. These opportunities require that adequate land be designated for medium and high density land uses. The city will seek to discourage the conversion of these areas to lower density uses to ensure that the goal of housing diversity can be met regardless of temporary market fluctuations. 199)-101 B IT RES0 WIT DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS vim FpaIPYt GROSS WETLAN01 AfY( aFT TOTALS !�T laN Ux NOTES _ PR0.IECINNIE S PFrAAflY S NSIIY F 3t Sl1B KyMbdl4b5 Joe O.4 1151 21.08 q 0.92 13) b 9teYrrJrlit 5118 11I Rln I'M 33] p 1056 35 1% 2<I b IMH _ 0508 4(kal¢Esrm i 13 22 0 10 23 1]] 213 b larailer tOSUB itdus"W 1 441 OT2 03 0 3.% ] 15] IR b etlOaeNYYWd 11516 Oeesr lfnievralte 35.q 9 3 15q 45 128 2e1 b -12516 1.a T.t OB 0 0 85 19 Iq 2m b m llatMopllM 1456 SM9ldfih 11.4 35 0 9 p 1.74 250 b 0 0 0 33 4 t21 121 b eO CaaabP^�'e 1556 Clttdl Rota 93 0 105 2q 2q b iH 41>Iel4Pllled 1656 .10 106 0 0 210 b afandar 516 li9®Aed4un 9% 209 D 015 1a l] I]t I 56 187 1] 0 0 1 27 131 It 1 m b l.a b 9eadtova10l1ttlr dsa d9rk4 asullra ladwb l9% SUB Ofae.IaaB 2566 48 lee 0 e.55 Im 1R b 39maldM btrepWW 39. 94456 SObfnPill. Is.. 215 18 0 1194 1T 94-5 P16 AI 14ft-5 71 0 0 0 ] 1 1 2.15-- V-7 me W 3] 381 H1 0 2) q 4 1.21 111 1 Q b 179 b Agtm{db ®IIOn{t 44d 56 386 a2 i1 5 N. a O.m l.A b _ ratp gopl, w1Y1i0 9410 $UB 6aiM Pob Eta 30 T2 125 21 9413516 Gaits lab lei l.q i 0 10 1 1% lm 174 b lm b Srairmb il9 Jnebpned 15516 Ha6ae WM Woa111F. 1P 0 1, IO s16 Fa4ea Alsatlaa 202 22 s 1 1 0.91 1.46 b rma 514P16 r SSI 10 fit ltt 1.t9 191 b 2PLID r f108a 1 325 TM 5 19t6 I.51 252 b 913P1ID 9I9]w FWP 1 M31 4 8 0 1191 3] 1$ 2W b �ehld 92-1516 Sone Olaea et 1004 0 fit 141 174 221 b Me91ml= y4� �pp � y le p 0 fi3 I] fm 2]11 b 9-556 ebdl n Ertlw 61 45j 7 19] 0 33 121 290 b 933PUD141 a 911. Wnj 131 1097 0 TZ 1 1.19 159 b weerd✓1M�9 91fiflASW.JoIai I me m 0 i3 54. 131 1® 246 b t9w • 0 942 IT 1« 160 b la0ar MYnab. %356 lab Em1aa 1935 2 0 H 12 1.44 l.% b wr ens m56 wmw 8 11 0 w11 7 136 1.T0 b 21 Sl6jDMWAJJMt,, 511 Oa o ■81 10f 106 b rM84im 56 TOe FtwOr a 0 02 56256 Osi Rtl8ed l411e1i9{aWw1Y 11. 2.1 0 9 161 b kaN aaeebP"vt 9&3 SUB S1r19009bn In O 0 1Z2 2 10 161 2.10 zm b id9 tlaveegniat %-4%Xt MeI 44T 0 a 381 132 2 1.52 1.52 b Gra as etpnwt %-7 SUB I. 132 0 5W 2 028 nat :t9 Sue SUfi Roa lair ltrl9 Etlra roll 0 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN While committed to providing life cycle housing, the city must overcome obstacles to their development. One of the most difficult impediments to providing one facet of life cycle housing and/or affordable housing, is land costs. Without the outright purchase of land by public bodies, the only way to moderate land acquisition costs is to assure that an adequate amount of land is available within the urban services area to alleviate real or perceived shortages of developable land. Another impediment to life cycle housing is the fear of the unknown by existing residents. To overcome this, the city must educate citizens about the different housing opportunities available. In addition, the city must work with business groups and organizations to show the benefits of providing housing diversity. Developers must be brought in as partners in providing life cycle housing. With changing demographics, it will become easier to convince the developers that life cycle housing is marketable. Finally, land development costs must be brought down. To do this, the review process must be streamlined, local, regional, and state fees must be reduced, and development must utilize existing infrastructure investments more efficiently. In addition, the city will provide density bonuses in order to promote the provision of affordable housing opportunities that may otherwise not occur. Table 2-5 and Figures 2-4 and 2-5 provide the city's analysis of the residential potential within the community. The city estimates the following gross acres for the different land uses: 5,615 acres of low density guided lands, 562 acres of medium density guided land, and 202 acres of high density guided land vacant within the community. Of this amount, there were 3,021 net acres of developable residential land within the community, as of January 1997 (2,530 acres of low density, 362 acres of medium density, and 96 acres of high density). The city assumed single family lands contained 15 percent right-of-way and 30 percent open spaces including parks, bluffs f ains hands end undevelo ab . Medium density and high enslty lands assume 10 percent right-of-way and 30 percent open spaces including parks, bluffs, flood plains, wetlands and undevelopable land. To project future housing, assumptions of various densities for the land uses must be made. For low density residential, the city assumed a range of housing would be developed. Using historical development data, the city estimates for scenario B M. a net density of 1.8 units per acre as one end of the density range. However, city code would permit up to 2.9 units per acre. As a compromise, the city estimated for scenario A a net density of 2.42 units per acre, which represents lot areas of 18,000 square feet, as the other end of the density range. This equates to between 5,844 and 4,555 single family units. In order to attempt to meet the higher projections, the city will need to encourage development of single family homes at the higher end of the permitted density range. However, in order to protect the character of existing neighborhoods, the city will need to transition density within new developments, preserving the expectations and investments of existing residents. Medium density housing is projected assuming 6 nits per acre. nsl y ousing Is projected assu units per acre. This represents an addition of 3,179 multi -family dwellings in the community. Included in multi -family housing are townhouse developments, apartments, condominiums, and other types of attached housing units. Additional multi -family housing could be included as part of mixed use developments. However, with little historical evidence to base assumptions upon, the city will not attempt to project the number of units that will be developed in these areas. Table 2-3 CITY INDEX BENCHMARK GOAL Affordability Ownership 37% 60.69% 30% Rental 44% 35-37% 35% Life -Cycle Type (non -single family detached) 19% 35-37% 34% 1991 Comp Plan Ow.,/Renter Mix 65/15% 67-75 1 25-33% BIX90 / 20-10 Density Single Family Detached t5/acre 1.8.1.9/acre is Muni -family 1l/acte 10-14/acre 9-"0 Oyerall Ararni 3.3 The city projects that approximately 56 percent of the future housing will be built within the existing MUSA boundaries and 44 percent will be in the MUSA expansion area. Overall approximately 75 percent of all housing will be inside the existing MUSA boundary and 25 percent will be in the MUSA expansion area. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The city should continue to ensure nondiscrimination in the sale and rental of housing units. Citizen participation in developing plans and implementing housing programs is encouraged in redevelopment, rehabilitation, and in the planning for future housing. Where housing density is given by a range in the,,, comprehensive plan, the city shall encourage development at the upper end of the density range. The city will promote the mixing of housing densities within projects in order to provide a wide range of housing styles and types. Such mixed densities must provide appropriate transitions from existing development. The city will continue to participate in the implementation of the Livable Communities Act of 1995 as stated in the golas and policies. The city will promote the integration of life cycle housing opportunities throughout the community. Affordable and subsidized housing shall not be overly concentrated in one area of the city. �De Table 2-5 HOUSING UNrrs (JANUARY 1997) t _ Not Acres Units A UAtB-@ Single Family 8381 1,724 1,_716 -- Multi -Family 260 ; 1.683-, 1,683- - 'Subtt otal � 1.096: 67 3.407 3.399 TOTALS `. 'Net Acres Units A tlrat5 B iSirlple Family +--- 5,370 j 10,042 9,057 - .__YMuld-Family 1.093 4.591. 4,590 TOTAL - 6,463 14,693 13,647 NOTES Net Acres Existing MUSA: SF 15% ROW MF 10'/ ROW, 30% wetland/park MUSA Expansion: SF 15% ROW, MF 10% ROW, (wetland/parks excluded via GIs) Scenario A represents an optimal development scenario. Scenario B represents a more realistic scenario. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUILDING PERMITS W .m Im M 5511 M z� M W 919! 93 W 95 % 97 Residential - Medium Density (R -M) The medium density designation is intended to accommodate multiple units including duplexes, townhouses and lower density apartments. A net density range of 4.0 - 8.0 units per acre is covered by this category with an expected average net �sity of 6.0 units per acre. The high density category which includes units with a maximum net density of 16.0 units per acre accommodates apartments and higher density condominium units. Within this category, an average gross density of 10.0 units per acre has been used for projection purposes. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Chanhassen has the historical development pattern of an agriculturally oriented community. Until the mid 1970's, a feed mill was located within the downtown area. As the community grew and the feed mill was displaced by other uses, the city shed much of its agricultural image assuming more of the role of a metropolitan suburb yet retaining much of its original rural flavor. Prior to 1980, Chanhassen did not have a significant industrial base and employment opportunities were located primarily outside of the community. In 1980, nine locations existed within the city which were classified as industrial: the IIS BMT Company, M. A. Gedney Company, Apple Valley Red -E -Mix, Statewide Auto Salvage, the Moon Valley Gravel Company, Instant Web, Animal Fair, The Press, Inc., and businesses it the first phase of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. From 1980 to1990, industrial expansion continued to occur. The community became the home of corporate offices for Rosemount, Inc. and Pillsbury. Approximately 1,200 people are employed at the Rosemount facility alone. Both of these businesses, as well as several others, established campus environments containing large areas of open space. Since 1995, the city has added 600,000 square feet of office/industrial uses. Based on a comprehensive employment study by the city in 1997, there are currently 8,000 jobs in the city. The Metropolitan Council estimates there were 6,538 in 1995 and will be 8,000 jobs by the year 2000- The city believes these numbers are low. The city has documented 470 businesses that have approximately 8,000 employees. Of the 470 businesses, 185 are home based. The city believes the number of home based businesses will continue to grow. The city will ultimately have 1,291 acres or 9% of its 2020 land use industrial/office guided property. The proposed area for office industrial expansion includes the area south of Lyman Boulevard adjacent to the City of Chaska and north of TH 169/212 in the southern portion of the city. With the proposed MUSA expansion, there will be an additional 205 acres of industrial office guided i�' Document No. OFFICE OF THE g399775 COUNTY RECORDER IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Fe CARVER $9 50UNlClheck# MINNESOTA 3 7 Certified Recorded on 10-25-2004 at 03:00 0A M)2�p M �f�II-l�Nlllarl W. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #04-01 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following use: Plowshares Development, LLC, to develop a sixteen unit townhouse known as Highlands at Bluff Creek project within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 2. Property. The permit is for the following described property ("subject property") in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: Highlands at Bluff Creek 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: a. The development must comply with the approved Planned Unit Development, Site Plan and Subdivision requirements for the property. b. All structures shall maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. C. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing for violation of the terms of this permit. Lo11 n7P�L/I �urS GM L Lapse. if within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized construction has not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse, unless an extension is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 6. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated: April 26, 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN By- 1�t Thomas A. Furlong, M or B D'I:" , 2 �-L � & � odd Gerhar , lty Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2e-% day of 2004, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the Ci f Ch risen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 g9plan\cup iup wapVughlands at bluff creek-cup.dm 2 AAA KAREN J. ENGELHARDT r, Notm Public - Minnesota 34'1200�� My Commission Exp in:s1/31 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV W Document No. OFFICE OF THE A399776 COUNTYRECORDER CARVVIII I IIII II II VI II I II Fee S 1 COUNTY, 13 TA7 Certfed Recorded on 10-25-2004 at 03.W ❑Aft PM 2004-10-25 A. III I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillll VIII ilI IIIIII III CaouWyRec dery CITY OF CHANHASSEN SITE PLAN PERMIT 04-01 SPECIAL PROVISIONS AGREEMENT dated April 26, 2004, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the "City"), and Plowshares Development, LLC. (the "Developer"). 1. Request for Site Plan Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a site plan for a 16 unit townhouse development (referred to in this Permit as the "project"). The land is legally described as HIGHLANDS AT BLUFF cREQC. 2. Conditions of Site Plan Approval. The City hereby approves the site plan on condition that the Developer enter into this Permit and fiunish the security required by it. 3. Development Plans. The project shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Permit, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A—Site Plan dated April 2, 2004, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Plan 13 ---Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plan dated April 2, 2004, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Plan C—Landscaping Plan dated April 2, 2004, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, 1 I . 4 4. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required screening and landscaping by July 30, 2006. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 5. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Permit, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, or cash escrow, in the amount of $5,000.00 ( $2,500 - boulevard restoration and driveway aprons and $2,500 - erosion control). 6. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Mr. Todd Simning Plowshares Development, LLC 1851 Lake Drive West #550 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100. 7. Other Special Conditions. Approved Site Plan # 04-01 as shown on the plans dated April 2, 2004 and subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. (b) The applicant shall work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. (c) The applicant shall submit a foundation planting plan for city review and approval prior to final plat approval. 2 (d) The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 square feet in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement, property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. (e) Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire - resistive construction. (f) A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. (g) The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. S. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Permit are attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF CHANHASSEN A It • ' ' • • 7 r • r. • � • • is Its L\,.; J ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this l�y of 2004, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOT Y PUBLIC ,AAAA" KAREN J. ENGELHARDT �+ NptaryPublic- Minnesota Commission Expires 1!310051 WWVVWVY STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF Ccae- Itr ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12'* day of J.A4 2004byi"oc� LLC-, a Minnesota limited tFy.t� Moraei• liability company, on its behalf. �rxl2 u % .r1 ski NOTARY PUBLIC City of Chanhassen USA MAE FAILS 7700 Market Boulevard Notary Public P. o. Box 147 Minnesota Chanhassen, MN 55317 116W C wnission Expires Jan. 31, 2006 (952)227-1100 CONSENT 4 Owners of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Site Plan Permit, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by them. Dated this l day of 77,k4 2004 rI • r• a. M • • is 0SII STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss COUNTY OF C,7,rvq_,r ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this IZ+1 day of 'q -k4 2004, by Laddwl.S;w,r;,, ,; {�1a.�1� .•w 1�crcl,rr.. s..1 , 1.1 C :� U+aF I w. -1ci a Minnesots limited liability company, on its behalf. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: USA MAE FAILS City of Chanhassen Notary Public Minnesota 7700 Market BoulevardFe"M. r :.. i,. a1 ma P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 5 SITE PLAN PERMIT EXHIBIT "A" GENERAL CONDITION 1. Right to Proceed. Within the site plan area, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, and 3) the City has issued a building permit. 2. Maintenance of site. The site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved site plan. Plants and ground cover required as a condition of site plan approval which die shall be promptly replaced. 3. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with site plan development. 4. Erosion Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with C the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion at the Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No development Will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless there is full compliance with the erosion control requirements. Erosion control shall be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is no longer a need for erosion control, the City will authorize removal of the erosion control measures. 5. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including materials that have blown, from streets and the surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 6. Warranty. All trees, grass, and sod required in the approved Landscaping Plan, Plan C, shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free at the time of planting. All trees shall be wan -anted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer or his contractor(s) shall post a letter of credit from a bank or cash escrow with the City to secure the warranties at the time of final acceptance. 7. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from site plan approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this 7 Permit, including engineering and attorneys' fees. C. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Permit within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. 8. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 9. Miscellaneous. A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty (30) days following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the local Postmaster's request. C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Permit. D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Permit by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits. E E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Permit is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract. F. Occupancy. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the utilities tested and approved by the city. G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release. H. Recordine. This Permit shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. I. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. J. Construction Hours. The normal construction hours and maintenance of equipment under this contract shall be from 7:00 am. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 am. to 9 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Operation of all internal combustion engines used for construction or dewatering purposes beyond the normal working hours will require City Council approval. K. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the site plan process for each lot. This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a building permit. L. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the site plan, the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities: 1. City of Chanhassen; 2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions; 3. United States Army Corps of Engineers; 4. Watershed District; 5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions. M. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall famish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers too enter into this Development Contract. N. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make 10 use of such property. The Developer father agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or pollutants were caused to be there by the City. O. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning neither the nature of suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-01 - highlands of bluff creek\site plan agreement highlands of bluff cmekdoc 11 04-0 (Denial) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review. On January 6, 2004 and March 2, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development — Residential rezoning (PUD -R) for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A. 4. Land Use Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is not compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. C) The proposed use does not conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the Bluff Creek Overlay District. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: a) The proposed development does not adequately preserve desirable site characteristics and open space nor protect sensitive environmental features, including mature trees, creeks and wetlands. b) The proposed development does not efficiently and effectively use the land, open space and public facilities. C) The proposed development is a high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. d) The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. `A e) The proposed development is Development which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. f) The proposed development does not adequately preserve the Bluff Creek Corridor primary zone. g) The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not affordable housing. h) The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use of the clustering of buildings. i) The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. 6. Subdivision a) The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the zoning ordinance. b) The subdivision does not meet all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. c) The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan. d) 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. e) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter. f) The proposed subdivision will cause significant environmental damage. g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will dedicate all appropriate new easements. h) The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are available or will be constructed with the development. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: (1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. (2) Lack of adequate roads. (3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. (4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: a) The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b) The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c) The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d) The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e) The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f) The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g) The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h) The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i) The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j) The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k) The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. 1) The proposed development meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback variance. 8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance does not preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The site constraints of the primary zone and West 78`s Street lead to the need for a variance. An alternate development scenario may not require a variance. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with surrounding development. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a) The proposed development is inconsistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b) The proposed development is inconsistent with the site plan review requirements since it does not meet required setbacks; c) The proposed development does not preserve the site in its natural state to the extent practical; d) The proposed development does not create a harmonious relationship of building and open; e) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: (1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; (2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; (3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and (4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 10. The planning report #04-01 dated March 2, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. Cj. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential —Low Density to Residential —Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development — Residential rezoning (PUD -R) for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. 11� ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2nd day of March, CHANHAS PL Cc�SION BY: Uli Sacchet, Chairman (Approval) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT IN RE: Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review. On March 22, 2004, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development — Residential rezoning (PUD -R) for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. The City Council reviewed the minutes of the March 2, 2004 Planning Commission meeting at which a public hearing was conducted on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The City Council now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A. 4. Land Use Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and is consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. C) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance with the approval of the setback variance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: a) The proposed development preserves the majority of desirable site characteristics and open space, and protects sensitive environmental features, including mature trees, creeks and wetlands. b) The proposed development is an efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through the clustering of the development on the site and the use of a private street. C) The proposed development is a high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. d) The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. e) The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. f) The proposed development preserves the majority of the Bluff Creek Corridor primary zone. g) The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not affordable housing. h) The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use of the clustering of buildings. i) The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. 6. Subdivision a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance subject to approval of the variance and revisions as recommended in the staff report. b) The subdivision meets all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. c) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan. d) 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. e) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter. f) The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage. g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will dedicate all appropriate new easements. h) The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are available or will be constricted with the development. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: (1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. (2) Lack of adequate roads. (3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. (4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: a) The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b) The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c) The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d) The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e) The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f) The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g) The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h) The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i) The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j) The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k) The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. 4 1) The proposed development meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback variance. 8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to develop the site and preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The site constraints of the primary zone and West 78`s Street lead to the need for a variance. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with surrounding development. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but is due to site constraints. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a) The proposed development is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements; c) The proposed development preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable subject to the revisions of the staff report by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developments or developing areas; d) The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space subject to the revisions recommended in the staff report with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: (1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; (2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; (3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and (4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 10. The planning report #04-01 dated March 2, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. OL -4-01 MREPMMNFN 18'1J'20 2i'T2 Securities Start D IPUN 11 /30/04 F LC #20082 expires 11/30/04 Highlands of Bluff Creek Planning Case 04-01 Boulevard Restoration & Erosion Control $5,000 Notify Bob Generous NOTE: LC automatically renews for successive one-year penods ..... . .. ............ . .... . ..... . ..... . .... . ....... ....... . --.- . . . . . ..................................... ........................................................................................ . ................................... . .. — ------------------ Q10M Dwdwcw wrmakNM S PAP ft PWI LAKELAND CONSTRUCTION FINANCE. LLC IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 200282 DATED JULY 9, 2004 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby establish our IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, numbered as indicated above, and effective immediately, in favor of the City of Chanhassen (the "City) at the request and for the account of Plowshares Development, LLC, ("Developer) in the amount of and not to exceed Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($5,000.00), as such amount is decreased as provided below, available to you by your sight draft or drafts drawn upon us as security for boulevard restoration and erosion control requirements ("Improvements') for the project to be known as the Highlands at Bluff Creek, Chanhassen, Minnesota. Each draft drawn under the LETTER OF CREDIT must be accompanied by: A. The original of this LETTER OF CREDIT; B. A notarized statement executed by the City, stating that the Developer is in default of the Improvements, that the Developer has failed to complete the Improvements in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, and, that the City is entitled to draw upon the LETTER OF CREDIT. Such statement shall set forth the Improvements not completed, the respect in which the Improvements had not been completed, and the amount required to cure such failure. Each draft drawn under this LETTER OF CREDIT must: 1. Be signed on behalf of the City by the Mayor or City Manager; 2. Be in the amount required to cure the default by the Developer to complete the Requirements, amount shall not exceed $5,000.00. 3. Bear on its face the clause "DRAWN UNDER LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 200282, Dated July 9, 2004. 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 135 7830 Main Street, Suite 210 22 Eastgate Building • PO Box 6056 Eagan, MN 55121 Maple Grave, MN 55369 St. Cloud, MN 56302-6056 Phone: (651) 994-4606 • Fax: (651) 994-7076 Phone: (/63142(-9130 • Far: (763) 420-9134 Phone: (320) 259-0900 • Fax: (320) 259-1907 • 17J 4. Be presented for payment during regular business hours at our Collection Department, 7830 Main Street, Suite 210, Maple Grove, MN 55369, no later than 2:00 p.m. on November 30, 2004. This LETTER OF CREDIT shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), we deliver written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that we intend to modify the terms of, or cancel, this LETTER OF CREDIT. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Chanhassen City Manager, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. The amount of this LETTER OF CREDIT shall be reduced by the amount of the estimated cost of the work completed as each portion of the Improvements are completed and paid for, and the City Official approves in writing such reduction. Each drawing hereunder shall reduce by the amount of such drawing the amount available under this LETTER OF CREDIT. We hereby agree that drafts drawn under and presented in conformity with the terms of the LETTER OF CREDIT will be duly honored upon presentation. Except as otherwise expressly stated, this LETTER OF CREDIT is subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 Revision) International Chamber of Commerce Publications No. 500 (the "Uniform Customs'). This LETTER OF CREDIT shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the State of Minnesota and, as to matters not governed by the Uniform Customs, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota, including the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect in the State of Minnesota. This LETTER OF CREDIT is not transferable or assignable and is not issued for the benefit of any third party claimant. We shall not be called upon to resolve issued of fact or law between the City and the Developer. LAKELAND CONSTRUCTION FINANCE, LLC By L4 Its Chief Operating Officer CITY OF CHANHA�SEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER O TRANSMITTAL 7/30/04 Nelson Document M Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ C:4 - of COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 7/28/03 03-6 2003-6 Site Plan Permit (Building "B" -Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center 1 7/28/03 03-2 2003-2 Conditional Use Permit (Building "B" -Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center 1 4/26/04 04-1 2004-1 Site Plan Permit (Highlands of Bluff Creek 1 4/26/04 04-1 2004-1 Conditional Use Permit (Highlands of Bluff Creek 1 9/15/03 03-7 2003-7 Site Plan Permit Chanhassen Short Course 1 12/8/03 03-10 2003-10 Site Plan Permit Lot 1, Block 1, Park Nicollet 1S Addition 1 4/12/04 04-10 2004-10 Conditional Use Permit Walnut Grove 2 na Addition THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ® For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO: ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ® For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US C N enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. 1107 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SITE PLAN PERMIT 04-01 M9;NJl: a9ttollPAFI1i7IL69 AGREEMENT dated April 26, 2004, by and between the CfI'Y OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the "City"), and Plowshares Development, LLC. (the "Developer"). I. Request for Site Plan Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a site plan for a 16 unit townhouse development (referred to in this Permit as the "project"). The land is legally described as Highlands of Bluff Creek Addition. 2. Conditions of Site Plan Approval. The City hereby approves the site plan on condition that the Developer enter into this Permit and famish the security required by it. 3. Development Plans. The project shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Permit, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A—Site Plan dated April 2, 2004, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Plan B—GGrading, Drainage, and Utility Plan dated April 2, 2004, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Plan C—Landscaping Plan dated April 2, 2004, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, 1 0 F 4. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required screening and landscaping by July 30, 2006. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 5. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Permit, the Developer shall fiunish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, or cash escrow, in the amount of $5,000.00 ( $2,500 - boulevard restoration and driveway aprons and $2,500 - erosion control). 6. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Mr. Todd Simning Plowshares Development, LLC 1851 Lake Drive West 4550 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100. 7. Other Special Conditions. Approved Site Plan # 04-01 as shown on the plans dated April 2, 2004 and subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. (b) The applicant shall work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. (c) The applicant shall submit a foundation planting plan for city review and approval prior to final plat approval. 2 (d) The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 square feet in floor area For the purposes of this requirement, property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. (e) Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire - resistive construction. (f) A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. (g) The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 8. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Permit are attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: 1,L40 Thomjps A. Furlong, (SEAL) DEVELOPER: Its C% --.:c} Msvw�s/ STATE OF MINNESOTA 0 COUNTY OF CARVER (ss 0 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this '^' of 2004, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOT Y PUBLIC KAREN ,,I�L ENGE�A HA�RDnT� NotaryPublic- Minnesota APV My Commission Expires 151121b5 fVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV' STATE OF MINNESOTA ( ss. COUNTY OF Cwt- JcLr• ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12� day of J. 2004by7 o. M.S'„N.r,�� , 1�. � rc> yc�aPr.�t«,�� LLC — G NOTARY PUBLIC VZOL OM City of Chanhassen USA MAE FAILS 7700 Market Boulevard Notary Public P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnesota (952) 227-1100 tiN ConrrVsebn• 31,2006 CONSENT 0 r • Owners of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Site Plan Permit, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by them. Dated this 12 day of 1 �k4 2004 By odd c.\,:.ef STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (sS COUNTY OF (2mrvq,d- ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1Z+1 day of I 4 la[eylov.11t •i1 1: DRAFTED BY: < LISA MAE FAILS City of Chanhassen Notary PublicMinnesota 7700 Market Boulevard ' """` My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 E 0 •e SITE PLAN PERMIT EXHIBIT "A" GENERAL CONDITION 1. Right to Proceed. Within the site plan area, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, and 3) the City has issued a building permit. 2. Maintenance of site. The site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved site plan. Plants and ground cover required as a condition of site plan approval which die shall be promptly replaced. 3. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with site plan development. 4. Erosion Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with 3 the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion at the Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless there is full compliance with the erosion control requirements. Erosion control shall be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is no longer a need for erosion control, the City will authorize removal of the erosion control measures. 5. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including materials that have blown, from streets and the surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 6. Warranty. All trees, grass, and sod required in the approved Landscaping Plan, Plan C, shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free at the time of planting. All trees shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer or his contractor(s) shall post a letter of credit from a bank or cash escrow with the City to secure the warranties at the time of final acceptance. 7. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from site plan approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this F] 0 Permit, including engineering and attorneys' fees. C. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Permit within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. 8. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 9. Miscellaneous. A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty (30) days following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the local Postmaster's request. C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Permit. D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Permit by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits. H 0 E. Severabilitv. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Permit is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract. F. Occupancy. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the utilities tested and approved by the city. G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release. H. Recording. This Permit shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. I. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. J. Construction Hours. The normal construction hours and maintenance of equipment under this contract shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 am. to z 0 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Operation of all internal combustion engines used for construction or dewatering purposes beyond the normal working hours will require City Council approval. K. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the site plan process for each lot. This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a building permit. L. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the site plan, the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities: 1. City of Chanhassen; 2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions; 3. United States Army Corps of Engineers; 4. Watershed District; 5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions. M. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall funrish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers too enter into this Development Contract. N. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make IN use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or pollutants were caused to be there by the City. O. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning neither the nature of suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. g:\plan\2004 planning cases\09-01 - highlands of bluff creek)site plan agreement highlands of bluff creekdoc Il ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Sue Nelson ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 7/28/03 03-6 2003-6 Site Plan Permit (Building "B" -Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center 1 7/28/03 03-2 2003-2 Conditional Use Permit (Building "B" -Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center 1 4/26/04 04-1 2004-1 Site Plan Permit (Highlands of Bluff Creek 1 4/26/04 04-1 2004-1 Conditional Use Permit (Highlands of Bluff Creek 1 9/15/03 03-7 2003-7 Site Plan Permit Chanhassen Short Course 1 1 12/8/03 03-10 2003-10 Site Plan Permit Lot 1, Block 1, Park Nicollet 1S Addition 1 4/12/04 04-10 2004-10 Conditional Use Permit Walnut Grove 2" Addition THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ® Foryouruse ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO: ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ® For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US SIG If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints 1107 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES CONDTTIONAL USE PERMIT #04-01 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following use: Plowshares Development, LLC, to develop a sixteen unit townhouse known as Highlands at Bluff Creek project within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 2. Property. The permit is for the following described property ("subject property") in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: Highlands at Bluff Creek Addition 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: a. The development must comply with the approved Planned Unit Development, Site Plan and Subdivision requirements for the property. b. All structures shall maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone'boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. C. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public bearing for violation of the terms of this permit. 5. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized construction has not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse, unless an extension is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 6. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated: AnnI 26, 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN By - Thomas A. Furlong, or A— b5t- B 0riIY odd Gerhar , rty Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this –26 IV day of 2004, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the Ci f Ch risen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 g:\plan\cup iup wap\highlands at bluff creek-cup.doc 2 ,AAAAAAMAA� V� Ma: KAREN J. ENGELHARDT NotaryPublic- Minnesota NyVWVVVVVVVVVVV5 V City Council Summary — June 14, 2004 C� 4-a g. Walnut Grove 2nd Addition, Klingelhutz Development:* 1) Final Plan Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract h. Highlands of Bluff Creek, Plowshares Development: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract i. Stone Creek Town Offices, Eden Trace Corp/Stone Creek Office Group LLC: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract j. Countryside, Lundgren Bros. Construction: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract k. Burlwood 2°d Addition Final Plat Approval, McDonald Construction, Inc. Resolution #2004-38: Consider Modification of 2004 CIP for Stormwater Quality Improvements for the 2004 Residential Street Improvement Project 04-01 n. Resolution #2004-39: Approve Transfers to Close Capital Project Funds and Debt Service Funds. o. Resolution #2004-40: Approve Change Order No. 4 for City Hall Lower Level Remodel, Gen -Con Construction. *All voted in favor, except Mayor Furlong abstained on item g, and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Tom Devine, 7640 South Shore Drive representing the South Lotus Lake Association, stated he was not aware of the water treatment program unfolding in their neighborhood until Friday night, but the association had prepared to do a brief overview of the South Lotus Lake Association's concerns relative to the park/tennis court and boat landing areas. He's had conversations with the Carver County Sheriffs Office, specifically Jim Olson about what can be done with enforcement of parking at the boat ramp. He talked about the history involved with planning and construction of the boat ramp, park and neighborhood and the promises that were made at that time. He voiced his disappointment in learning of the water treatment plant only last Friday night from Mayor Furlong that there's a decision to build or do something there and the mechanics is really what's on the table right now without getting the neighborhood involved. The last issue was the political effort it took from the neighborhood to build the trail along Highway 101 and his hopes that there isn't a political backlash happening from that effort. Staff 2 City Council Meeting — June 14, 2004 g.* Walnut Grove 2nd Addition, Klingelhutz Development: 1) Final Plan Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract h. Highlands of Bluff Creek, Plowshares Development: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract i. Stone Creek Town Offices, Eden Trace Corp/Stone Creek Office Group LLC: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract j. Countryside, Lundgren Bros. Construction: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract k. Burlwood 2°d Addition Final Plat Approval, McDonald Construction, Inc. Resolution #2004-38: Consider Modification of 2004 CIP for Stormwater Quality Improvements for the 2004 Residential Street Improvement Project 04-01 n. Resolution #2004-39: Approve Transfers to Close Capital Project Funds and Debt Service Funds. o. Resolution #2004-40: Approve Change Order No. 4 for City Hall Lower Level Remodel, Gen -Con Construction. *All voted in favor, except Mayor Furlong abstained on item g, and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Tom Devine: Tom Devine, 7640 South Shore Drive. I came here tonight somewhat unexpectedly. I was not aware of the water treatment program unfolding over in our neighborhood until Friday night, but we had prepared to do a brief overview of the South Lotus Lake Association's concerns relative to the park and the boat landing areas, for which I brought a handout that I'd like to give you. Over about the last 18 months or so there's been a number of issues in and around the park area and the boat landing which kind of together have been unresolved that have been kind of coming to a focal point. And we did just a very quickly, almost 2 years ago now we started tracking what the total numbers of complaints were that were occurring in the park area, the South Lotus Lake Park and the boat landing area. Those incidences that were reported to the sheriffs office and tracked those and we were able to get some reports from them that outlined the detail of what has been going on. At the point that I got those reports, there was about 56 of them that had occurred in the one summery from say April to September -October. At that time we were told that there really wasn't enough activity that was negative activity oL4-o l 0 0 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES MAY 24, 2004 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Tom Scott, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman and Bruce DeJong PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet & Jerry Paulsen Melissa Gilman Dan Keefe 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen Villager Planning Commission CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 10, 2004 -City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated May 10, 2004 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated May 5, 2004 -Park and Recreation Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated April 27, 2004 b. Accept $1,000 Donation from the Chan-o-Laires Chorus Group for the Senior Center. d. Resolution #200433: Award of Bid for Furniture, Lower Level Remodeling Project. e. Approval of Change Orders, Lower Level Remodeling Project. f. Approval of Temporary On -Sale Liquor License, Fourth of July Celebration, Chanhassen Rotary Club. g. Approval of Purchase Agreement with Plowshares, Inc. 1-1 L This item is scheduled for final plat approval at the 6/14/04 City Council meeting. Please respond to Bob with your comments by 6/7/04. Administration • Highlands of Bluff Creek — Planning Case No. 0401 May 5, 2004 CITY OF C>�ANIIASSEN Mr. Todd Simning Plowshares Development, LLC 7700 Markel Boulevard 1851 Lake Drive West #550 PBax 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MChanhassen, N 55317 1-1 L This item is scheduled for final plat approval at the 6/14/04 City Council meeting. Please respond to Bob with your comments by 6/7/04. Administration Re: Highlands of Bluff Creek — Planning Case No. 0401 Phone: 952,227.1 JOG Fax: 952.227.1110 Dear Mr. Simning: Building Inspections On April 26, 2004, the Chanhassen City Council approved the following: Engineering A. "Land Use Amendment from Residential — Low Density to Residential — Phone: 952.227.1160 Medium Density contingent upon final development approval of the Planned Fax: 952.227.1170 Unit Development and Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Land Finance Use Amendment." Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park a Recreation B. "Conceptual and preliminary approval of the rezoning of the property from Pnone:9522271120 Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development — Residential, Fax: 952 227.1110 PUD—R." Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.2271404 C. "Preliminary Plat approval of the proposed development for Highlands of Bluff Creek with a variance to permit a 20 -foot setback from the Bluff Creek Planning a Natural Resources Primary Zone, plans prepared by Westwood Development Services, Inc., Phone: 952 227.1130 dated 04/02/04, subject to the following conditions. Fax 952.227.1110 Public World 1. The plat shall show a property line creating Outlots A and B which common 1591 Park Road boundary shall follow the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone Phone: 952227.1300 boundary. Fax 952.2271310 Senior Center 2. Final Plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels Phone 952 227,1125 adjacent to West 78`s Street. Fax 952.227.1110 Web site 3. The applicant shall submit association covenants to the City for review prior www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us to recording. The association shall be responsible for the maintenance of any common elements of the development. 4. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication on fifteen of the sixteen lots based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single-family home on the property. The park fee, using 2004 park fees, is $2,200 per unit, which shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Mr. Todd Simning • • May 5, 2004 Page 2 5. One tree shall be added to the landscape plan in the northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 4. 6. Applicant shall be responsible for all development plantings located on public property. The applicant shall submit to the City a maintenance agreement signed by the homeowners association to assume responsibility of the plantings once the development is completed. Twelve to fourteen -foot evergreens shall be located at the end of the cul-de-sac and positioned so as to alleviate headlight glare into the neighboring home. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any work commencing. 8. The developer shall enter into a Development Contract/PUD agreement with the City. The Development Design Standards shall be incorporated in the development contract. 9. All structures shall maintain a 20 -Foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. 10. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). Outlot A may be dedicated to the city to be preserved as open space. 11. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 12. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The applicant must submit storm sewer sizing calculations for staff review. 13. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and Type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. The silt fence shall be removed once the site has been revegetated. 14. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat. 15. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 16. The total amount due payable to the City for the additional 15 units will be $44,910 (15 @ $2,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Todd Simning • • May 5, 2004 Page 3 17. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC -7/13C-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. 18. The applicant must be aware that the public sewer and watermain require a preconstruction meeting before the building permit issuance. 19. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc. 20. Add the following City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2109, 2201, 3101, 3104, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300 and 5301. 21. Add a stop sign at the exit side of the access. 22. Add a street light at the access. 23. On the utility plan: a. Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. b. Remove/delete the last note. c. Call out water -main fittings. d. Show sanitary sewer pipe class & slope and watermain pipe class. e. Watermain shall be 8" PVC C-900 pipe. 24. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Last storm manhole discharging to the pond must be a 3 -foot sump. 25. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. 26. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshall. 27. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design. Mr. Todd Simning • May 5, 2004 Page 4 28. CBMII-6 shall have a two -foot sump since it is the last structure that is road accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond. 29. The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all times." The note regarding positive drainage shall be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. 30. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over the proposed storm water pond. 31. Riprap and geotextile fabric shall be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. 32. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light duty silt fence shall be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. 33. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 34. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: TyM of SloM Stabilized within Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 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. 35. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 36. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $32,777. 37. 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 38. Additional area of right-of-way in the southwest corner of the site shall be dedicated to the City for West 78's Street on the final plat. This right-of-way dedication will not impact the proposed Mr. Todd Simning • May 5, 2004 Page 5 lots. The exact size of the required right-of-way will be determined at the time of final plat. 39. The walkout elevations of the units adjacent to the proposed pond shall be lowered to an elevation of 1003 and an elevation of 1008 on the east end of the private road." D. "The City Council approves Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. The development must comply with the approved Planned Unit Development, Site Plan and Subdivision requirements for the property. 2. All structures shall maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. 3. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). E. "The City Council approves Site Plan, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated 04/02/04, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The applicant shall work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. 3. The applicant shall submit a foundation planting plan for city review and approval prior to final plat approval. 4. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 square feet in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement, property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 5. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire - resistive construction. 6. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 7. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures." Mr. Todd Simning • May 5, 2004 Page 6 Enclosed is a site plan agreement that must be executed by Plowshares Development, LLC. Return the agreement to me for City execution and recording at Carver County within 120 days of the approval (by August 24, 2004). The required security specified in the site plan agreement shall be submitted prior to the City issuing a building permit. A copy of the executed agreement will be returned for your files. Final plat documents must be submitted to the City three weeks prior to the City Council meeting in which you wish to have your final plat approved. Enclosed is the list of items required for submittal for final plat approval. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227-1131. Sincerely, Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner Enclosures c: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer Steve Torell, Building Official Susan McAllister gAplan\2004 planning cases\04-01 - bigblands of bluff creeMapproval letter.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: — April 26, 2004 RESOLUTION NO: 2004-29 MOTION BY: Lundquist SECONDED BY: Peterson A RESOLUTION APPROVING LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT HIGHLANDS OF BLUFF CREEK – PLANNING CASE 04-01 WHEREAS, the City has received a request for a Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential – Low Density to Residential – Medium Density; and WHEREAS, City Council tabled this item on March 22, 2004 asking the developer to make revisions; and WHEREAS, the developer made revisions including reducing the number of units from 18 units to 16 units, lowering the grades of the private street, and adding landscaping to screen car lights; and WHEREAS, this preserves the Bluff Creek primary zone through the use of density transfer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council hereby approves the Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential–Low Density to Residential -Medium Density, Planning Case 04-01. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 26'" day of April 2004. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Furlong Ayotte Labatt Peterson Lundquist 7 i L A -Z -Q - __:: I - Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor NO ABSENT None None City Council Summary*pril 26, 2004 Lundquist asked for clarification on the hours that employees are on the premises. Mayor Furlong asked the applicant if they have made efforts to have meetings with the neighbors. Councilman Ayotte asked for clarification of the ordinance in regards to pitch and decibel levels. Mayor Furlong asked Roger Knutson to give his thoughts on the issues raised by Mr. Blanchett. Councilman Labatt asked for clarification on the decibel levels and when a noise becomes a nuisance. After discussion the following motion was voted upon. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance for Chapter 5 of the Chanhassen City Code, Kennel Licenses. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA: F. APPROVAL OF 2004 JULY 4TH FIREWORKS CONTRACT. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on why the fireworks display is at Lake Ann and not City Center Park. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the 2004 July a Fireworks Contract. All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who was not present for the vote, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. H. APPROVAL OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS. LAKE ANN PARK PLAYGROUND. Councilman Ayotte asked staff to clarify the reasoning behind the wood play structure replacement program. Resolution #2004-27: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the plans and specifications and authorize advertising for bids for Lake Ann Park playground. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. K. After meeting with Bob Labatt stated his concerns West 78"' Street. m Generous and Matt Saaand walking the site, Councilman with the height of the road and the access into the site from City Council Summary*April 26, 2004 • Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council adopt the following motions for Planning Project #04-01, Highlands of Bluff Creek, and adoption of the Findings of Fact: 1. Resolution #2004-29: Approval of Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density. 2. Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Ovelay District. 3. Approval of Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for a 16 Unit Townhouse Project. 4. Preliminary Plat Approval for 16 Townhouse Lots and Outlots with the following amendments to conditions: 6. Applicant shall be responsible for all development plantings located on public property. The applicant shall submit to the City a maintenance agreement signed by the homeowners association to assume responsibility of the plantings once the development is completed. 12 to 14 foot evergreens shall be located at the end of the cul-de-sac and positioned so as to alleviate headlight glare into the neighboring home. 39. The walkout elevations of the units adjacent to the proposed pond shall be lowered to an elevation of 1003 and an elevation of 1008 on the east end of the private road. 5. Approval of a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback Requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Lundquist provided an update of the meeting he attended at the Carver County Government Center regarding the Highway 41 river crossing and suggested that the City provide comments during the public comment period regarding impact on the Seminary Fen. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt provided an update on expansion of Highway 5 west of Highway 41 and talks with the County and MnDot. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. 5 City Council Meeting Aril 26, 2004 • Councilman Ayotte: So moved. Mayor Furlong: And is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on that item? Or on that motion? CM - o 1 Resolution #2004-27: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the plans and specifications and authorize advertising for bids for Lake Ann Park playground. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. K PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT. Councilman Labatt: I just want to give everybody an update here. What day did we meet out there Bob and, I met with Bob and Matt out at the site here. Week and a half ago? Two weeks ago? Bob Generous: Yeah, a couple weeks ago. Councilman Labatt: And very good meeting. We walked on the property out there. My concern, most of my concern out there that day and the follow-up work done by our two employees, answered a vast majority of my questions and settled my concerns on some of those. But my concern is, and Matt called me back on Thursday or Wednesday this past week and my concern was the height of the new proposed road throughout portions of the development are raised between 5 and 8 feet. Is that right? Correct me if I'm saying these numbers, if I'm wrong please correct me. Raised between 5 and 8 feet of elevation change upward from the current grade out there right now. And as we sat out there and looked to the east at the first property, the homeowners there, they raised objection to the road going through and coming back down to Century Trail. But my concern is still that they don't realize that the height of the road, and where it's going to terminate there at the hammer head is about 8 feet or 9 feet above the current grade. Matt Saam: One correction that I'll add Councilman Labatt, and that's what I called you back on is that after talking with the engineers, looking at it one more time. This is the developer's engineer, they are able to lower the road at the east end where it was previously 8 feet to about 6 feet. So there's still fill going in there but it's just not at the 8 foot level. Councilman Labatt: Okay. In any event we did have that conversation I think on Wednesday and my reason, I want to make sure that's noted in here on the conditions. That the grade changes have to be such. I don't want to have another Chapel Hill 27 City Council Meeting Aril 26, 2004 • experience that we talked about out there with the pine trees. So I want to make sure that, and I don't know Bob if when they raised the objections of the road, that homeowner there, if they know that that's the true height of the road terminus there on the hammer head. That being said, Bob and Matt and I had the conversation but with a possible solution to that is, extensive landscaping of trees not ordinarily planted but developers, such as 12 to 14 foot evergreens along that berm there. On the east property. To include a near, what are we? Near total block so the concern is if you raise the road 6 to, 6 feet above where it's currently out there, plus you take the height of a vehicle headlights, at that terminus for the last people, everybody's going to be turning around in that hammer head or going down into those last 3 units. Their headlights are shining right into the windows of that last unit, and I don't know if they realize that. So the solution that Bob and Matt came up with is well we could make the developer put in massive amounts of trees or landscaping there is how we control that. We also discussed such things as access and entry off of West 78". Those questions were answered by a traffic study that MnDot had currently undertaking or was undertaking for the continuation of West 78`a west of 41. So those issues have been satisfied, but then we also looked at the possibility of relocating the pond down behind the existing barn but I think we've read the letter from staff that that would eliminate up to 3 units and be a deal breaker so, but I just wanted to, so my point is I wanted noted in the staff report that the new elevations for the pond and the road, the 2 foot changes to the 5 foot separation with what they had proposed, it's going to be a 2 foot, is that right? Or 3 foot. Matt Saam: The back of those houses will be at 1003 approximately and that is about 3 'h feet higher than the pond high water. And that's coming down 2 feet Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And so Matt, do we need to put those in a condition here and make that? Matt Saam: Sure. The applicant has agreed to do that. He's submitted revised sketches and he said they would be incorporated on the final plat. I would make sure of that, but if you want to include it as a condition, that might be a good idea. Councilman Labatt: Well I don't want to have no Chapel Hill experience so. Matt Saam: Understood. It might be better to get it on paper. Councilman Labatt: On paper and a condition. So if you can word up number 39 then, I think is where it would fall. Yeah, number 39. And then on the landscaping plan which would, do you happen to know which page is the landscaping plan on? Matt Saam: 5. Councilman Labatt: Can you just show me, what are they proposing to plant along that berm and what height trees are they proposing there? PV City Council Meeting Aril 26, 2004 • Bob Generous: Councilmember Labatt, they're proposing to put 5 evergreens at the end of that and another 4 deciduous trees. What they don't show on this is there's another row of evergreens that are on the outlet currently on top of that berm. Councilman Labatt: Correct. Bob Generous: And what condition number 7 of the subdivision says is we recommend that they pull the evergreens closer to the end of the cul-de-sac. To more directly block the headlights there. They are proposing as part of this using 8 foot evergreens in other locations on the site. I said well we could make that a condition there. 12 to 14 foot evergreens on other locations. We could have them put larger trees in that location. Councilman Labatt: Can we fashion a, or somehow change a landscaping plan or amend it to show that these trees down here will be the 12 to 14 footers also? Bob Generous: Yes. You would amend condition number 6 on page 2. The motion. Evergreens shall be located at the end of the cul-de-sac or you could use 12 to 14 foot tall evergreens. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, where are you? Councilman Lundquist: It already says you're going to do it to alleviate headlight glare into the neighboring home. Does that take care of what you're looking for? Councilman Labatt: Well my point is, we told Chapel Hill the same thing. They had to put 12 to 18 foot, or 12 to 14 foot evergreens in there and they planted 4 footers and they put them on the wrong wall. So this time I'm not going to have another experience like that where I get people pissed off at me. So I'm going to be very specific in this case here where I'd like to tell the developer and the applicant exactly how big they shall be and where they shall plant them. So I'd like, you know 12, if we can substitute or add in there on condition number 6, the last sentence would be 12 to 14 foot evergreens shall be located at the end of the cul-de-sac and positioned to alleviate headlight glare to the neighboring homeowners. That's fine. I'd like to tell them exactly how big they should be so when we go out there in the final thing, Bob or either or Jill does, they're 12 footers. Or 14. And that's it. I just thank Matt and Bob and Ms. McAllister for allowing us out there for the hour or so to walk on the property and get the questions I had answered. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Mr. Saam, do you have anything recommended for 39? Matt Saam: I could offer up the condition for number 39. The walkout elevations of the units adjacent to the proposed pond shall be lowered to an elevation of 1003. Councilman Labatt: Okay. 29 City Council Meeting Aril 26, 2004 • Matt Saam: Satisfactory? Councilman Labatt: And I'd like still put in the impact of that carries over to the road. Or how do we. Matt Saam: This will lower the filling required for the proposed road by 2 feet. Councilman Labatt: Can we put an elevation on the road? Are you comfortable suggesting that right now? Matt Saam: Sure. The road would go down to 1008 at the east end so. This will give a maximum height of 1008 on the east end of the private street. So we're tying them on elevations with both the walkouts of the units and then the road elevation. Councilman Labatt: And so then if you look at this color map, do you have this one Matt? Matt Saam: The landscaping plan? Councilman Labatt: No, the little Highlands, the new one for April 2. Take a look at this one real quick. If not I'll get Mr. Mayors. Just so we're looking at the same number here then. So on the end of this map where it says 1010 running vertically, that will become 1008? Matt Saam: Yes. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Follow that road to the west then where you see the 1012 on the south on the shoulder. On the curve there. And that will also become 1010 there, correct? By lowering those walkout units, all of a sudden those units. Councilman Lundquist: Can I just interrupt and ask, if we're going plant 14 foot trees at the end, what difference does it make what height the road is? Councilman Labatt: I'm going for everything I can get here Brian. Okay? Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Matt Saam: Councilman Labatt, I would have to look at it in a little more detail on the west end. We looked at it specifically on the east end. Of lowering that road. Basically from the high point in the road going to the east. We thought that was the issue spot. So it may be able to be lowered on the west end but I just need to look at it in a little more detail. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay? Anything else? 30 City Council Meeting Aril 26, 2004 • Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions for staff at this point or other items to be raised? If not is there a motion? For what purpose? Steve Lillehaug: Being heard as Planning Commissioner and... Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess what I'd like to say is, since this is coming back a second time, we'll hold off because there might be other people too, so thank you for your understanding there. So at this point if there isn't any other discussion is there a motion? Councilman Ayotte: Make Labatt do it. Councilman Labatt: No. You guys make it. I had to do it on Pulte and it ate me up, so someone else can do it. I got what I wanted and. Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we, the City Council approves land use amendment from residential low density to residential medium density continued upon final development approval of planned unit development and Met Council review and approval of the land use amendment. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any discussion, or is there a second on that motion? Councilman Lundquist: Do you want to do these as a whole or? Mayor Furlong: Are we okay taking them as a whole? And just. Take them as a whole with the amendments and changes. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Let me restate then to say, the City Council adopt the five motions for planning project 04-01 Highlands of Bluff Creek and adoption of the findings in fact in the staff report with the addition of condition 39 on number C, and the amendment of condition 6 on item C to include the 12 to 14 foot evergreens. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second? On the motion. Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council adopt the following motions for Planning Project #04-01, Highlands of Bluff Creek, and adoption of the Findings of Fact: 1. Resolution #2004-29: Approval of Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density. 31 City Council Meeting Aril 26, 2004 • 2. Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Ovelay District. 3. Approval of Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for a 16 Unit Townhouse Project. 4. Preliminary Plat Approval for 16 Townhouse Lots and Outlots with the following amendments to conditions: 6. Applicant shall be responsible for all development plantings located on public property. The applicant shall submit to the City a maintenance agreement signed by the homeowners association to assume responsibility of the plantings once the development is completed. 12 to 14 foot evergreens shall be located at the end of the cul-de-sac and positioned so as to alleviate headlight glare into the neighboring home. 39. The walkout elevations of the units adjacent to the proposed pond shall be lowered to an elevation of 1003 and an elevation of 1008 on the east end of the private road. 5. Approval of a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback Requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, a brief presentation, which I'll provide the details later to Mr. Gerhardt. Had a meeting at the Carver County Government Center approximately 2 weeks ago regarding the new Highway 41 river crossing. It's a project that's kind of been ongoing with MnDot. MnDot is looking to do a preliminary draft EIS for 3 locations. One in Chanhassen, one in Chaska, one in Carver area. And that will be going out for public comment I think today, is when that went out so based on the location of that being, effecting the Hesse Farms and Seminary Fen and several other things, I would encourage that we take an opportunity during that public comment period to make some comments on that. We know that the fen is a pretty unique area to our city. It's not a, it will be an interesting project going forward because each of the locations has a particular kind of hold up for each of them. Historic districts, the fen and other development things going on out west near Carver, but that said, the project's still not on the 20 year MnDot plan but that doesn't necessarily mean that it won't be accelerated either so would just encourage us again I'll get the details to Mr. Gerhardt and Mr. Oehme regarding that if they don't have them already, but just to encourage staff that we put some effort into that and take advantage, if we have 30 days to make that public comment. 32 J • City Council Summary — March 22, 2004 Name Address Gayle Degler Jon Horn Lisa Freese Jon Chiglo John & Jacqueline Meyers Mark Statz (BRAA) Maria Lynn Todd Schulz AI Klingelhutz RJ Smith o4-ol 1630 Lyman Boulevard 2550 University Avenue W., St. Paul MnDot Metro, Roseville MnDot Metro, Roseville 1011 Barbara Court 2335 West Highway 36 1050 Lake Susan Drive 1070 Lake Susan Drive 8600 Great Plains Boulevard 7741 Chanhassen Road Paul Oehme provided background information and the concerns raised at the public hearing that have been addressed by MnDot and staff. Councilman Peterson asked staff to explain what measures will be taken to ensure that traffic does not go through the Chanhassen Hills neighborhood from the 2121101 interchange. Jon Horn with Kimley- Horn & Associates spoke to this issue. Jon Chiglo with MnDot stated that they have been working closely with staff over the past few weeks to address modifications to the resolution and MnDot is prepared to agree to all the conditions and requested that the resolution reflect that. He also stated that the portion of 101 being turned back to the city between 86'h and Lake Susan Drive would be added to the design build project and constructed under that project. Mayor Furlong asked Lisa Freese to clarify funding for the 101 projects. Mayor Furlong asked for a legal opinion on the amendments suggested by Mr. Chiglo in the resolution. He then thanked all the residents, staff and MnDot for their work on this project. Resolution #2004-15: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the resolution for the TH 212 Municipal Consent Project No. 03-09-1 as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. A. REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY. B. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT: C. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT D. LOTS AND OUTLOTS: AND: E. REQUEST FOR A VARIANC 3 le City Council Summa �— March 22, 2004 • Public Present: Name Address Todd M. Simning 1851 Lake Drive West #550 Ed Hasek Westwood Professional Services Steve Kroiss Plowshares Development Nathan Franzen Plowshares Development Scott Bertas 6670 Vernon Avenue Susan McAllister 2930 West 78m Street Bob Generous provided the staff report and an update from the Planning Commission review. Councilman Labatt asked staff to justify the 20 foot variance to the prima zone and asked if similar conditions had been given to Vasserman Ridge. Pulte, Longacres, JMS Homes, Stone Creek, Walnut Grove, or other developments as you continue down along the prima line through Bluff Creek. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on what is being proposed on the maps. Council discussed the pros and cons of what was being proposed by staff, the elimination of 3 units or shifting units to save trees in the prima zone. Councilman Labatt stated when Pulte was approved, their units were positioned in such a way where any future development in the McAllister property could be accessed off of Century Trail. The applicant, Todd Simning with Plowshares Development stated after the last Planning Commission meeting on March 2°d, even though they left, not with an approval but with good direction on access onto Century Trail, the bituminous trail along TH 41, aggressive reforestation of the "staff defined primary zone", and to make sure the tree loss calculations were correct. After meeting with staff, the one outstanding issue is the "staff defined prima zone". He reviewed ordinance 286, which deals with the Bluff Creek Overlay District and presented his thoughts on why he feels their development is consistent with that ordinance. Mayor Furlong asked Uli Sacchet, Chairman of the Planning Commission to provide the Planning Commission's perspective on this proposal. Councilman Peterson asked to see a map showing the density of development surrounding this project. During discussion Councilman Labatt stated his desire to see the hammer head turnaround remain so the council doesn't fact another problem like they saw in the Knob Hill development. Mayor Furlong asked if the applicant would be willing to provide a written extension to the time line to explore issues raised at the Planning Commission and tonight's meeting. Todd Simning stated he didn't feel he could at this point, but would need to talk with his business partner and attorneys to find out what their thoughts are and then provide an answer by the April 3`" deadline. Councilman Peterson asked for legal counsel on actions that can be taken by City Council. Todd Simning asked if they are tabled, how long before they could be in front of the City Council again, and explained the work that has taken place to get to this point and discussion on the hammer head requirement. After discussion the following motion was made. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves the Land Use Amendment from Residential, Low Density to Residential, Medium Density contingent upon final development approval of this H City Council Summa • arch 22, 2004 • planned unit development and Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Land Use Amendment. Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Labatt and Councilman Ayotte voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 3 to 2. The motion needed a 4/5 vote to pass. Roger Knutson explained the council's options at this point and the need to adopt findings of fact consistent with denial. A special meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, March 30, 2004 at a time to be decided. Mayor Furlong called a 5 minute recess at this point in the meeting. Mayor Furlong called the meeting back to order. Roger Knutson explained that the applicants had provided a written notice of extension and explained the process the council needs to follow to reconsider the previous motion regarding the land use amendment. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to reconsider the motion regarding the land use amendment for Highlands at Bluff Creek. All voted in favor, except Councilman Labatt who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of4to1. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to table Land Use Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Medium Density for Highlands at Bluff Creek. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to table the Conceptual and Preliminary PUD#2003-3, Preliminary Plat with Variance #2003- 19, Conditional Use Permit #2003-10, and Site Plan #2003-11 for Highlands at Bluff Creek. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Due to the late hour of the meeting, the following motion was made for item 5. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table amendments to City Code, including Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes for Chapter 10, Licensing; Chapter 11, Miscellaneous Provisions & Offenses; and Chapter 13, Nuisances. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPOINTMENTS TO SENIOR COMMISSION, PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, AND PLANNING COMMISSION. Mayor Furlong reviewed the interview process conducted by the City Council and asked for a single motion for appointments to all commissions as follows: E • City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 0 4D4-01 residents. Noise, screening and landscaping, the park and ride which here tonight again as a council we're learning that MnDot's agreeing to allow a right-inhight-out off the exit ramp. Also a right-intright-out off 101, which should effectively take bus traffic off Lyman Road east of 101, which is something our residents wanted. We've talked tonight about the cut through traffic on Lake Susan Drive and the steps that will be taken there. And effectively what's been accomplished in the last few weeks here is a real workable plan to fund the realignment and expansion of 101 all the way from just right near the apartments, just north of the creek down to Lyman Boulevard. That's going to be done through a cooperation of not just MnDot and the city but also Carver County and that's how local government units and county and state government units can work together and I think that's important that we're doing that. We have more work to do. Our resolution this evening, there were some things that we wanted to make sure MnDot was aware of. They've agreed to it which is wonderful. Continue cooperation. Even though there are a lot of issues and there's more work to do, the benefits of new 101 to the city of Chanhassen will be here for many years to come. It's going to reduce congestion, traffic on Highway 5 and other roads. It's going to increase safety on 101 with the realignment and expansion, taking traffic off the existing two lane road that is really unsafe. Too often traveled at high speeds. It's going to include improving the safety throughout our city in terms of developing our trail system and expanding that. And ultimately it's going to provide the necessary roads and development for the southern part of our city, which not only the realignment of 101 but also the extension of Powers Boulevard down to Pioneer Trail. This project is important for our continued growth and while growth inevitably brings change and levels of temporary inconvenience, I believe that this road will be an invaluable asset for our city. So again, thank you to everybody that's been involved with this. It's been a very important project to our city and people have put forth the effort I think that it was justified and we appreciate that. With that if there are other comments, I'd be happy to listen to them. Otherwise I would certainly entertain a motion to approve the resolution as it has been amended. Councilman Ayotte: So moved. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: It's been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Resolution #200415: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the resolution for the TH 212 Municipal Consent Project No. 03-09-1 as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC. A. 16 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 B. C. D. E. 9 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. Public Present: Name Address Todd M. Simning 1851 Lake Drive West #550 Ed Hasek Westwood Professional Services Steve Kroiss Plowshares Development Nathan Franzen Plowshares Development Scott Bertas 6670 Vernon Avenue Susan McAllister 2930 West 78`" Street Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. As you stated this is a land use amendment, preliminary plat, conditional use permit, site plan review for an 18 unit townhouse development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The property is located on the northeast corner of Highway 41 and West 78'b Street. Currently this property is zoned A2 which is Agricultural Estate district. What that zoning permits is a single family home or a farmstead. That's what the property is currently used for. The property is guided in the comprehensive plan for residential low density uses. That permits development densities of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Appropriate rezoning of the property are RSF, which is our single family residential district, which permits lot sizes of 15,000 square feet. The R4 district which permits single family homes or twin homes with lot sizes of 10,000 square feet per unit, or planned unit development residential under the PUD -R designation with low density, however density transfers are not permitted. Only lot sizes down 11,000 square feet with an average lot size of 15,000 square feet. However as I stated, this property is located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The intent of the district is try to preserve the land that is contributory to the Bluff Creek, and then in this instance the headwaters for Bluff Creek which runs through the majority of the city. To do what the overlay district attempts to do is encourage people to do density transfers. As part of this development proposal, the applicant was requested to submit a development sketch plan that showed what they could have developed on the property without looking at the primary zone, or the Bluff Creek Overlay District. They presented an 18 unit, twin home development. We use this as the potential outside development capacity of the property and working with them furthering their development proposal. I should note that this map showed the Bluff Creek Overlay District, and it's a little hard to see. As a part of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. This property is located in this wooded area here. As part of that plan the overlay district actually included all the wooded areas on the property. However in working with the 17 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 applicant's consulting engineering firm, staff met on site with them and agreed that the Bluff Creek primary zone boundary was the edge of the treed area north of the existing farm house and then there's some out buildings that are located closer to Highway 41. The developer, as part of their proposal, is proposing that the city permit them to realign or change the primary zone boundary. Staff throughout this project has been pushing that the primary zone boundary is the edge of the tree line. The applicant as part of their proposal is requesting that the city allow them to adjust that. That change is within the purview of the City Council to go forward with it. Their development proposal includes 18 townhouses. They're in three -2 unit structures and four -3 unit structures. As part of staff's review, we're recommending that we maintain the existing Bluff Creek primary zone, and in essence eliminate these 3 units, which would encroach into that. We have agreed as part of this process to recommend that they receive a variance from the Bluff Creek primary zone setback. The ordinance requires a 40 foot setback. Staff is recommending that a 20 foot setback be established as part of this development. In going through the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission did deny this project. Their concern was the clarification in determination of the primary zone boundary, the amount of tree loss that resulted from this development, specifically after they were tabled at one time and came back with a development plan that addressed many of the engineering issues that came up, including the sewer alignment, storm water... Additionally they provided a trail along Highway 41 that would connect to the city trail as well as a sidewalk system on West 78`h Street which would connect this neighborhood to the existing trail system and the surrounding trail system. After the Planning Commission denied the project, or recommended denial, the applicant responded with one final alternative. What this did was shift this roadway further to the east. Created a 4 unit structure and a 3 unit structure where two -2 unit and one -3 unit structures were. What they were able to do is preserve additional trees along the Highway 41 corridor. As part of the review of this project we also looked at the potential for moving the storm water pond to the north side of the property in the location, approximate location of the existing barn. However, in doing that they fragment the existing wooded areas and staff believes that that proposal would be environmental degradatory to the Bluff Creek corridor, so we recommended that that not be approved. The applicant's proposal in essence is creating an exchange or transfer of primary zone boundaries. They're going to create a new primary zone in the open area of the barn, and eliminate some of the primary zone behind the single, or the three townhouses in Lot 3. The exchange is about equal. They have an extensive landscaping plan to reforest this area. Again staff was opposed to any encroachment into the primary zone. We said the primary zone boundary is the primary zone boundary and that's what we should stay with. I should note that the applicant is coming close to their 120 day review period. They have to April 3`d of this year, so there are not more City Council meetings to review this project. Council has several options before them. They can approve the development as proposed by the applicant. They can approve the development with the shift of the lots, the road to the east and have 3 twin home units. Or they can adopt staff's recommendation to approve the development with the existing primary zone boundary and the loss of the 3 units. And finally the City Council could deny the application and find that the rezoning of the property is inappropriate. Staff is recommending approval of the alternative for the 15 townhouse units on this. The site plan approval, as part of that we would work with the applicant to m 0 9 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 create design standards so that no two structures next to each other would have the same architectural detailing or color, so we get additional differentiation, but we believe the site plan per se is a fairly well thought out. And we're recommending approval of the 15 units. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Bob. Give me your justification for the 20 foot variance to the primary zone? Have we applied any of the similar reasons or conditions to Vasserman Ridge or given them the option or Pulte, Longacres, JMS Homes, Stone Creek, Walnut Grove, as we continue on down along the primary line through Bluff Creek. Are we creating. Bob Generous: Within the Vasserman Ridge development, that was straight zoning. The city did permit removal of trees and that's what we used as the delineation of the primary zone boundary in this instance. However we required that they provide twin home units and use a public street allowing Century Trail I believe it is. That's the Arboretum Village development. For the Vasserman Ridge, they did allow the city did allow encroachment into the tree line. However they used the primary zone primarily as the wetland edge, and so there's no variance involved. Stone Creek came in before the ordinance was in place. We're working on Walnut Grove 2°d Addition. There's no variance involved. They are outlotting all of the primary zone and maintaining a 40 foot setback. For Walnut Grove that was prior to the ordinance being adopted. We did negotiate where the development could take place. There was some tree removal as a part of that, but we did preserve a significant portion of the Bluff Creek corridor, the contributory area that's steep slope down into it. The only other development I worked on was the DayCo Concrete building in Chanhassen Business Park. They did receive a setback variance from the primary zone boundary but we did not allow any tree removal. They had to maintain the tree edge. Councilman Labatt: So what about Longacres neighborhood? Bob Generous: Longacres. That was in place prior to the ordinance being in place so we have different, we didn't have the standards at that time. As part of the retro fitting if you will, we amended the Bluff Creek Overlay District to exempt those houses from, when they do an expansion such as a deck or such, they until recently had to come in for a conditional use permit and if they had their setback did not comply with the 40 feet, then they have established that as their setback. Councilman Labatt: Okay. That's all I have right now. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other questions for staff? Councilman Lundquist: Bob for clarification, I want to make sure I got all these right. I don't see... The one that staff is supporting has, I don't even know what you want to call that. Can you throw that or put that plan up? Okay. And that has the storm pond down 19 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 along West 78h Street in the front there, yep. Okay. And staff is saying go with that but take out Lot 3, correct? Bob Generous: Block 3 so it's Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block 3. Councilman Lundquist: So we'd just eliminate those 3 units? Bob Generous: Right. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. The other of the alternative that the developer came back with with, that's this one with the storm pond up north of Block 4, or Lot 4. That one, yep. Bob Generous: Yes, that's correct. Staff was opposed to this alternative because it fragments the wooded area. Our whole concern is to maintain the integrity of that. It's an example of upland woods or big woods. Mayor Furlong: When you say fragments, this one shows a line of something going down through the other woods. Is that what you're referring to? Bob Generous: Right, and also you're encroaching into it and making a greater open area rather than the wooded area. Mayor Furlong: And is that the runoff then or. Bob Generous: Yeah, that would be the storm water pond and they'd eliminate that on West 78`s Street. Councilman Lundquist: And then this color one, what is that one? Bob Generous: That's the applicant's latest alternative in response to the Planning Commission discussion, and I should point out one other thing. The Planning Commission also wanted us to look at potentially providing the roadway access out to Century Trail rather than to West 78`s Street. However in looking at that from an engineering standpoint, it's a 14 percent slope so we can't meet it. What this plan shows is by shifting the development to the east, if you will, we're able to preserve additional trees on Highway 41. We believe that's a good alternative but again this Lot 3 would have to go away, or this Block 3. We don't want, we're recommending that no encroachment into the primary zone be done. Councilman Lundquist: So staff's not in favor, what would be staff s opinion of the colored one, take out that Lot 3? Bob Generous: We would support that. 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Councilman Lundquist: And does that do, I mean essentially that just kind of squishes it together from the one that you said you're supporting and saves some trees along 41? Bob Generous: Correct, and it goes from having 2 twin units, which was consistent with the north edge of the Arboretum Village, and then has a 3 and a 4 unit structure. Councilman Lundquist: I see. Okay. Councilman Peterson: As he's looking Bob, on this version, what I was trying to figure out is that we're gaining trees on 41, which is a benefit. Versus on the current staff's recommendation you're losing trees in comparison to this one. If granted the variance in the primary zone, are we, is it about a wash in the number of trees or would there have to be more trees taken out? If you left those 3 units in, would substantially more trees be taken out than we're gaining by moving it over or not? Bob Generous: I believe we're gaining more area by shifting it to the east. More canopy coverage area. Councilman Lundquist: So Craig, are you asking to take out this thing in the yellow here? So you're saying go with what's in is the 18 units. Councilman Peterson: If we do approve this version versus staff's recommendation, we're gaining trees. Councilman Lundquist: Right. Councilman Peterson: Then the question is, do we, say because we're gaining trees on this side, do we give them the opportunity to take out more trees in the primary zone. I'm not saying I support that. I'm just saying if that is. Mayor Furlong: And I guess to clarify too, it's my understanding or Bob, maybe you can help me. In the green shaded area where in the one schematic showed you could have located the pond there. Reasons you don't want to include the pond. Isn't under this proposal, regardless of the fact that they're shifting, they are planning to reforest that area? Bob Generous: Yes, they would revegetate that area, correct. Mayor Furlong: And how does that green area, from an area standpoint, compare to the yellow area that they're proposing to take out? Bob Generous: I believe it's slightly larger. Mayor Furlong: Okay, comparable to slightly larger. Okay. And with this schematic we also gain the blue area for trees which we didn't have in the earlier versions? 21 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions? Councilman Peterson: Is that area, where you're recommending taking the 3 units out, I was trying to read in here, what kind of trees are they? Are they the mature trees that are most, everybody's most concerned about taking out or are they the 1 and 2 inch scrub trees? Bob Generous: Well there's 3 significant sugar maples in that area. The applicant has said they redesigned the end unit on that. The most westerly one and shifted the porch deck area to the west end of the building so they're actually able to come out farther and they might be able to preserve one of those. Councilman Peterson: Alright, second question. You've got, you're recommending taking out 3 units. Can we redesign it so we leave in 1 or 2 versus take out 3 and still be outside of the primary zone? Bob Generous: There's no way to do it with this because of the pond location and size and the street location and the building location. Councilman Peterson: As you look at the picture you look at where the 3 are and where the primary zone is. Let's say you put a one unit back in there at an angle, couldn't that be done from a layout standpoint? Bob Generous: You don't get sufficient separation from the street to make that work, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Anything with regard to, you've got, going on Councilman Peterson's thought here. You've got that 2 unit that's on the corner. Bob Generous: Yes. Mayor Furlong: It seems a little further back. Is there space to add another one next to that and still stay out of the primary? Have you looked at that? Bob Generous: I haven't looked at that. So shift the 3 to the corner and have 2... Councilman Lundquist: Because Block 2 would have 3 units in it. Bob Generous: Yeah, I don't know if the, yeah the setbacks still wouldn't work on that one. Councilman Peterson: I'm not concerned about the setback as much as taking out the trees. If we get close, I mean everything's a matter of degree but I like your idea. 22 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Mayor Furlong: This thing seems to be a moving target. We'll stay with questions before I make more comments. Councilman Peterson: We're problem solvers here today. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Absolutely. Sure, Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I want to talk about this road. I think Bob, and a few of us were here for the Pulte discussion but my memory, when we discussed Pulte and we had conversations at the council level and with Mr. Griswold from Pulte about positioning that one Pulte unit, it's not on your schematic there that I'm looking at. Maybe you can shift it a little bit. There, on there. Positioning that one in such a way where any future development in the McAllister property could be accessed off of Century Trail through the property right here. Is my memory correct? Councilman Peterson: I remember that. Bob Generous: I believe there was discussion on it. Councilman Labatt: And from reading the Planning Commission minutes, and it seems to me the applicant doesn't want to wait because the negotiation with the city on a price to purchase the property is too lengthy. I really think that that's the access to this lot is off that Century Trail and not off of West 78th. Councilman Peterson: But they're saying that the 14 percent grade. Councilman Labatt: Well why is it a 14 percent grade though? 70 percent of this property is being graded. How much of it is being graded? How are you making every one of these units a walkout? How come you all of a sudden have to put this, how tall is that retaining wall Bob? 8 feet? Bob Generous: The one on West 78th9 Councilman Labatt: 4? It was 8 at one point wasn't it? Matt Saam: It may have been in. Councilman Labatt: It may have been back in January at the January meeting? It was 8 feet then. Why is that? Because we're making all these units, the developer wants all these units to be walkouts. So if you apply the same elevations, is it still going to be 14 percent? If you don't allow so much grading. Matt Saam: I think the change that would need to happen to get away from the 14 percent is to make the units, as you said, from walkouts to lookouts or full basement type structures. That would lower your street grade within the proposed development and then get that 14 percent down to hopefully a 10. 23 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Councilman Labatt: Exactly. Councilman Peterson: No, I see your point. I don't know that, I find the road personally an issue. If staff and the safety people are saying it's okay to do what we're doing, but I remember the point. We did talk about that. We moved that one with the potential of having an opening there. Councilman Labatt: But that option, but the plan we did back then isn't being applied now. But that wasn't the point of all our discussion back with Pulte. Our point was, to access the McAllister property through here and that's being ignored right now by this developer. And I think that you know, we made conditions on Pulte. Could they maybe have squeezed another unit in there on their own if we weren't going to apply those same conditions now? They may have. Or they may have been able to put a couple in by re- positioning, I don't know but. Councilman Peterson: I agree with you Steve that there was, if they only decided to put 2 houses on that 6 acres and then it probably wouldn't be worth putting a road in there at extra cost so, I mean it all goes back to what's in there. At the time we made a decision that if this happens, we should at least consider it. Whether we ever use it or not I don't think is the point. I see your point, but as long as staff says you don't need the connection there, I don't know if we want to force one. Councilman Ayotte: Well is it a question of not needing it or is it because of the 14 foot issue wasn't addressed before? Matt Swam: Really it's the 14 percent. From an engineering standpoint looking at it, we believe ultimately this would be better to come off Century Trail. But if we're talking about a 14 percent steeg slope with icing and those type of issues, then we're fine with coming off of West 78 Street, and MnDot has concurred with that. We got comments from them and they're fine with coming off West 78th Street also. Councilman Ayotte: Is there a gain if the 14 percent goes away? Is there a gain to go through the other way? Matt Saam: If we could get down to the 10 percent maximum, I would say yes. It would be better to come off Century Trail, or at least explore it in more detail. Mayor Furlong: So expand a little bit on why it would be better. Just from a traffic flow standpoint? Matt Scam: Exactly. West 78th Street is a collector, more of a major type roadway. It will have slightly higher traffic volumes than Century Trail will. So for an access standpoint that sort of thing it's nice to limit your direct access to the major type collectors. OZ,I 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. We're still in questions for staff here. Are there any other questions? Mr. Generous, you put up a plan and I don't know which one it was. It was the concept that showed the 18 twin homes. I think you called them twin homes. Yes. I asked a question for you. This was prepared by the applicant? Bob Generous: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Basically a concept of how they thought this could develop what, without changing the zoning? Bob Generous: Well it'd have to be rezoned because currently it's A2 but using the R4 zoning. Mayor Furlong: Which is what it's currently guided for? Bob Generous: Which is consistent with the low density residential. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So with the current land use guides, this would be or could be a possible development without regard to the trees that are in there and the primary zone. Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Furlong: How much verification did we do, if any, on verifying that this is a viable program? At least from meeting the ordinance standpoint. Bob Generous: We relied on the applicant's numbers showing that they have the, if average lot area was 11,400 square feet, all of them exceeded the 10,000 square foot threshold. We didn't actually measure all the numbers in there. We relied on their numbers and so they all had 50 feet of frontage. Minimum of 100 feet of depth so they all appeared to meet the ordinance requirement. Mayor Furlong: So in cursory review, I don't want to put words in your mouth but we didn't go in and do a lot of detail. Bob Generous: We didn't do. Mayor Furlong: And so just for my clarification then, if an applicant came in for this property trying to get it rezoned from agriculture to it's current land use, this could be a potential. Bob Generous: That would be a potential alternative. Mayor Furlong: If taking out the trees within the primary zone or the trees on the north side of the property was not a concern. Bob Generous: Correct. 25 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so what the plan that they've come in with and multiple iterations down to this plan is really just taking those 18 and pushing it through the southern part of the property so that we can preserve those trees up there. Bob Generous: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Just for my understanding, and maybe this is a question for the applicant later. With regard to this revised alternative, the colored one that we have, did I understand your correctly that when you were listing off the multiple choice that we're, yeah A, B through F it looks like, of things that we could do tonight. One of them was to look at this shift and did I hear you say two -3 units because this picture actually shows a 4and a3. Bob Generous: The alternate B in the list, 1(b) would be a 17 unit development which would create three 2 south of, or south of that private street into the development. It would also shift the road over, so it picks up that benefit. But it maintains a 2 unit. Mayor Furlong: 3 unit limit as opposed to a 4 unit within that development. And is that consistent, is that 2 and 3, is that consistent with the development to the east? Bob Generous: The majority of it, yes. It's consistent, all the north side of Century Trail are 2 unit structures. There are south of it some 3 and then I think there's a 4, one 4 unit structure within that whole area north of West 78`s Street. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the unit south of that are 6 and 8. Bob Generous: 6, 8 and 12's. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, those are questions I have at this time. Any other questions for staff? If not, the applicant is here. Is there anything you'd like to address to the council. Todd Simning: Good evening council members. Todd Sunning with Plowshares Development. I guess first off I'd like to thank staff. I know this one has been a tough project on I think all of us and I think that you guys could probably see that by the number of reiterations of plan that we have there, and some of the confusion from you know just different plans and different tree losses and saving trees and that. We were at last Planning Commission meeting on March 2°" and at least in our opinion we left that, not with an approval from them but we did get some direction, at least what we thought. There were four items that at least we took away that we thought we were dealing with. Access onto Century Trail as being one. The bituminous trail along 41 and what would happen. Number three, they wanted to see some aggressive reforestation of some of the quote unquote, staff defined primary zone. And number four, to really double check our tree calculations and have accurate data when we came in front of you guys and met back with staff. Taking that information into account, it was probably only several days later, RM 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 in fact I think the next day I actually called Bob and set up a meeting with all the staff members including the parks, as well as Matt and the forester and that sort of thing. And presented out thoughts to staff and to try to come away with a resolution to a lot of the issues that were kind of outstanding with Planning Commission. When we left that meeting we had, we thought it was a very positive tone. Thought we came to a conclusion on everything, with the exception of one item, and that just happens to be the, what I would call the staff defined primary zone. Basically what I'd like to do is just, I'm going to, you guys already have the comments or the long dissertation that I gave during the Planning Commission so I'm going to skip that and just basically go down to some of the nuts and bolts of it. I want to reference ordinance 286, which is deals with the Bluff Creek Overlay District. I truly believe that we are maintaining and we're consistent with our request in our development with this ordinance. I would also like to add that the McAllister property, which is defined in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan as a woodland area, and Bob was correct. In that though the recommendations that Ordinance 286 is supposed to be following is that in the uplands area, that they recommend a 300 foot buffer strip alongside the creek. And clearly on the McAllister property at this point, the staff defined area is much larger than a 300 foot area there. In dealing with the other developments, Pulte and Lundgren Brothers, what I do want to demonstrate to you on these aerial maps here. Let me get this into the perspective. This is the McAllister property here. This is the Arboretum Village which is Pulte's project, and then this is I believe it's Vasserman, if I'm not mistaken, which is a Lundgren Brothers property. The original or initial documents that we received from staff included this primary and secondary line and it kind of shows it going through the McAllister property. It shows where it relates to the Pulte project, and also where it relates to the Vasserman Ridge/Lundgren Brothers project. This is a year 2000 aerial where these just show the ghost plats that were actually presented to you guys and approved. In 2002 you can see that the grading was actually done on the Pulte project. Nothing has been done in the Lundgren's project yet but clearly as staff has demonstrated to us numerous times, since going through this procedure, that they wanted to maintain the tree line. This clearly shows that even the primary line, or what the staff defined primary line was at the time Pulte was allowed to grade it and take significant trees out. They had quite a few significant trees that were taken out in those areas. And then coming back into year 2003 aerial for Vasserman Ridge, it actually shows that Lundgren Brothers took out a fair amount of trees, and in fact plotted a cul-de-sac down in the primary zone, or what staff defined as primary zone, and in fact now that they put houses in here, they're even going to have to take down more trees. With this, at least my demonstration, I do believe that this documentation is solid proof that our request of moving the primary zone, or staff defined primary zone from here to here is consistent with the precedence that has been set for other developments within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. We do want to move the primary line back to where we feel it's adequate. Third thing that I'd like to touch upon is our unit type and structures. We do feel that they are consistent with the adjacent neighborhoods. In our new proposal, and I guess that's the one that I'm primarily talking about here, and I'll get to the details of that in a second. That is correct. We have one 4 unit building. If you're looking at the overall consistency of Arboretum Village, where they have some 2 units and 4 units, some 6 and 8 unit buildings. All were 2 and 3 and we would like to have one 4 unit 27 City Council Meeting •March 22, 2004 building we feel is definitely consistent with the flow of what the general neighborhood is over in the area. The first one happens to be in the yellow area where we would, we request that the primary zone be pushed back. We are removing some canopy coverage cover, okay. But we are not removing any significant trees out of that area, and if you actually look at, and I don't know if you guys have the, I think you did in your packet, the most recent tree inventory. You can see the numbers in red where we made some significant changes. In that yellow area right there we are taking tree cover out but we are not taking any significant trees out, and I think that's very important for you guys to know. I believe that Councilman Peterson was the one asking about what kinds of trees are going to be removed in that area, and they are the more of the scrub. The smaller items that we did not have to tree inventory at all, so I want to make certain that you guys understand that. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me. Sorry to interrupt you but just so I'm clear as to what you're saying. In the tan area here, those circles that are identifying trees. Those are going to stay? Or do those come out? Todd Simning: In the yellow area right here. Mayor Furlong: Are we looking at the same one? Todd Simning: Let's make certain. I don't think we're looking at the same one. Mayor Furlong: Okay, then that's my fault. Councilman Lundquist: There, that one. Todd Simning: Okay. Yes, in that tan area there, those significant trees are not removed at all. Councilman Lundquist: So everything with the circle on there stays. Todd Simning: They stay. Those are included in the tree inventory. We are not taking those down. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sorry for the interruption. Todd Sinning: No problem. The second thing that I'd like to point out is the reforestation area. This .13 acres. Thanks Bob. You know I'm doing this for myself. The reforestation area. Again we walked away from the Planning Commission meeting with a real intent for them to, for our understanding that they really wanted to see some good reforestation. What we went back to and presented to staff and it's incorporated on the final revision that you guys ended up getting, was that we were actually going to be putting an additional, I believe it's 12 or 13 trees in that area, and if you look at the size of the trees that we presented, I believe, but I'm not certain because I don't have it just sitting right here. Where's your plan Bob? That last one. We've got so many plans. WV City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Councilman Ayotte: You guys have got to start numbering those things. Todd Simning: I know. Yeah, here we go. Instead of just going with say a 2 inch and 3 inch trees, we've actually presented more of a 4 inch larger trees to go in instead of just puny little trees. We really wanted to, we see it as a benefit for even our development that we can make that area look a little bit better and enhance the view. And so that's one thing that I think we're supposed to put 6 in, but I believe that we're putting 11 trees in that area, just to make it even denser than what is required of us. And then the third thing that I'd like to point out in this is that by shifting the 3 units on the west side further east, we do save an additional 5 large trees, and I believe that they're mainly all sugar maples. We have one 21 inch basswood. One burr oak, 28 inch. A 19, 21 and 20 inch sugar maple, in those areas. So I think that all in the whole scheme of things that we're actually adding a net benefit to a substantial degree over what is really required of us. And in fact on the required landscaping and proposed landscaping, we're 30 percent more in tree replacement and we're 60 percent greater in shrub replacement than what we are required to be doing. Fourthly what I'd like to touch upon is the request to remove, the removal of city standard hammer head at the end of the private street. Due to the fact that all buildings will include fire sprinkler systems, number 28 on page 17 of 20 actually includes a statement in there that we have to get an approved hammer head. That was put in there, and I believe Matt could back this up because at, they didn't realize that we were going to sprinkler our units over there. We are going to put fire sprinklers in all the units. Having done that, we are going to keep a hammer head down there, just because we like it for garbage trucks and that sort of thing, but we just ask that it not necessarily have to be a city standard one, just in case it got too big and a tree would have to come out. We're looking for flexibility there. Six, or I guess the fifth item that I'd like to touch on is the elevations and the changes to walkout versus lookouts. I believe Mr. Labatt, Councilmember Labatt may have asked this question about dropping elevations. The reason that we looked at coming off of Century Trail, and deciding not to go ahead with it is during the meeting that I had several days after the Planning Commission meeting, all the staff and ourselves and our engineers had met together and discussed that item. And on that we did come away with the 14 percent grade as the fust issue that we were trying to deal with, but almost more importantly, and I wish Mr. Hoffman hadn't left but the parks gentleman, Todd, really didn't want to see that roadway come off of Century Trail. The area that Arboretum Village dedicated to the city included part of this as park through here, and he thought it probably not the best thing to do to all of a sudden introduce headlights coming into the unit right next door, and then also as we're turning here, the units that are over on the south side over here, introducing headlights into that area. And so those two pieces of information we used to determine that I guess we're not really going to pursue it and it didn't seem like the best alternative. And I don't know if Matt has anything to add there but that was kind of the gist of it. In closing I guess I'd like to thank staff for their hard work. I know this has been a tough project. I'd like to thank the Planning Commission for their input that they gave us to come back with what we feel is a much better plan. I'd like to thank City Council for hearing our case, and we look forward to developing another great project in Chanhassen and I guess I'm open to any questions you guys might have. 911 City Council Meeting March22,2004 • Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions. Councilman Ayotte: Is the 14 percent grade issue that Mr. Hoffman raised a concern about focused on using up park land versus headlights going into somebody's house? I don't quite understand that point. Matt Saam: Sure. There are, let me point it out on the plan. Councilman Ayotte: Which plan? Matt Saam: We can use this plan. Councilman Ayotte there are existing units roughly in this area here, which face the street so what Mr. Simning was referring to was if we brought a street down here, we potentially have headlights then pointing at those houses. That was one of the issues we took into consideration along with this is not open space parkland. The perception to the existing residents that oh, we live next to parkland but oh wait a minute, here comes a street coming through there. In addition to the 14 percent. I think they all added up to let's not pursue that at this point. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Councilman Peterson: On a different drawing than that, point out your perspective of where the 300 foot line that you're referencing is versus where staff's recommendation is. Todd Simning: Give me one second because. You guys can barely see this but it's a green, kind of lime green dotted line that runs right through here. That happens to be the 300 foot mark. And so none of our units are actually in that. In fact technically if we were living to the ordinance, and what I believe the intent of it is, that would actually open up this entire corridor over here for development purposes. Councilman Labatt: I need a clarification here because maybe you can define buffer strip and help, I'm confused here with what he just said and you guys, the look of amazement on your face. Kate Aanenson: Well the 300 foot is not the ordinance. It's in the management plan, which is just a plan. The ordinance is the governing documents as to what you follow. He's citing the management, the Bluff Creek Overlay District plan. Todd Simning: Correct, but in it it actually states in the resolution here in 286 that they're going to implement the policies and recommendations found in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Management Plan, and so again it. Kate Aanenson: Correct, but the ordinance clearly said follow the primary district boundary line, as this map that was referenced as a part of the adoption. So there is no magic 300 feet. It moves less and it moves more than 300 feet. If you look at that map. 30 City Council Meeting. arch 22, 2004 • Mayor Furlong: When was that map created? Kate Aanenson: That was part of the management plan and that became adopted Mayor Furlong: When was it adopted? Kate Aanenson: When we adopted the overlay district, that was put into the city mapping and then that's where the ordinance says you can give the prima facia evidence to determine where that line is, and that's what they've done. Right, not using a 300 feet but where that line follows based on the tree line. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I think we're going to have more discussion on the primary zone but do you have more questions Councilman Peterson? Councilman Peterson: A couple yeah. When we were approving the petting farm, we were moving some buildings around and allowing more buildings as I recall. Were we encroaching into that primary zone...? Kate Aanenson: Those buildings, well yeah. Those buildings were moved on without location approval. They were moved on site, so. Bob Generous: The plan that was approved for the interim use permit did not have any encroaching into the primary zone. Councilman Peterson: That was my question. Kate Aanenson: That was one of the conditions to have a tree survey done which I don't believe is completed. Was never completed as part of that, going through the historic preservation so we never had a tree survey done with that part of it. Councilman Peterson: Then the last question, and it's a little bit more tougher perhaps, but as developer's presented some pictures of Pulte and Vasserman and it looks like we have allowed going into the same or similar tree area, or at least similar tree areas, I guess I'd like to get staffs response to that. It seems as though we've let neighboring developments, as he's presented it. Again not giving you a chance to respond so I'd like you to be able to respond to that ... as best you can, perhaps even using his documents if you'd be so kind... Councilman Ayotte: I want to see him repeat that. Kate Aanenson: Well just briefly, each project comes in and requests, both projects request, all three projects requested a rezoning, so on each of that, the council has the ability to review each. The merits of those and what the city's getting. For example on the Pulte project it was a PUD. Transfer of density which they weren't able to maximize. The driving caveat on that project was everything on that side was to be twin homes, so that forced a different product type. I think when we came to the end, at the end of the 31 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 day there was some minor concessions made. We decided we wanted a public street on that north side. It did push a little bit but that was again a public street. I think we have a different circumstance here. On Vasserman Ridge, there was tree loss on part of that. As far as where the location on the primary zone was. Again that project was a low density. We did specific tree conservation easements on each of those lots. So again the merits of each project is weighed individually for what you're getting. Again the driving force on the Pulte was the twin homes and a public street. So we kind of spread the units out instead of clustering them and that forced a little bit of a fanning effort on some of those. Mayor Furlong: Okay, any more questions for the applicant or other questions for staff? Councilman Labatt: Well I think a follow-up question to your point Craig is, Kate, are we getting concessions from Plowshares such as we did in Lundgren Brothers and Pulte? Kate Aanenson: Well I think I'll go back to what Bob said in the beginning of the report is that when each project comes in, in order to do this low density, you don't get the ability to do the preservation of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Because you only have the three zoning applications. RSF, straight subdivision, R4 or the PUD which allows 11. You aren't able to employ the preservation and the density transfer, which we didn't do on Vasserman but we did do on Pulte. We did the density transfer and we preserved all the trees and took all the extraction to the north. So in this project you have to ask yourself, what are we getting that's different in order to up zone it because we have to up zone it in order to accomplish it. You know and allow them to cluster, what is the city getting? A different product type, and that was one of the things when we met with the Planning Commission that we talked about. And so I guess I'd throw that back to you. We gave our recommendation that we felt somewhere you know closer to 15 probably would be better, and we were concerned about that we held Pulte to the two twins on that side, on the north side. I know we knew that was a big concern previously, so you know I think one of the things we always try to look at is what is the product. What's the city getting. Todd Simning: And if I may answer that also. I would honestly believe that what you guys are gaining is if you're looking at what the primary zone is, and what each of the developments have here, you're actually gaining additional primary zone in the plan that we actually show. And again as Kate stipulates, or states, that that 300 foot line is maybe a moving target. Well in this case we're not asking to be pressed up against the 300 foot line. We're not asking to remove significant trees inside the area that we're developing and buildings will be there, and so I really do feel that you guys are gaining an additional protective area in this area, just simply because of that. Kate Aanenson: I don't want to belabor the point but the 300 foot is the not the magic empirical. Councilman Labatt: You're misstating the point to the plan versus the ordinance. The triangle that you're pointing at there, it can't be built because it's inside the primary line. 32 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Todd Simning: That is a, that triangle area right there is, it's again it's not, that really isn't technically the primary zone. It comes down to a definition of staff or what they believe is. Councilman Labatt: Why isn't it? Todd Simning: Well, I'm following, or at least I truly believe that I'm following the Resolution 286 where it states in here the purpose of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and in it it specifically says that it's implementing the policies and recommendations found in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, and then when you go back into the Bluff Creek Management Plan, it states in there, I mean there's many different pieces of information in this document. But in it it states that the primary corridor boundary delineates a conservancy zone where undisturbed conditions are desired. This is in the area where any type of development and/or human activity directly impacts the morphological and biological characteristics of Bluff Creek. The morphological characteristics are related to the stability of the stream and vary depending on the variations in the flow regime, the amount of sediment carried by runoff, localized erosion and non -point pollution associated with the type of human activities taking place in the area. The management practices for this area will focus on the preservation enhancement of natural conditions, but it does not say anything about tree preservation. It talks specifically about the stability of the stream and those characteristics and what they're trying to preserve as the headways of Bluff Creek. And so it isn't necessarily that it's just dealing with trees. I mean there's a little bit more involved so to say that it's just trees and that's all we're dealing with here, the plan was actually, at least the way it seems to be written, it seems to deal with more of the stream and the water conditioning versus necessarily just trees. Kate Aanenson: Can I just add one more word on that. I would agree with everything he said. That is part of the plan but the ordinance clearly gives specific, under 20-1464 clearly tells the applicant how to define where the primary zone is and how to delineate it and that's what we've asked. Mayor Furlong: And what does that say? Kate Aanenson: Well it just says that they have to provide data based on the map, and they have the ability through prima Facia evidence to go out and delineate that and that's their obligation. And again, the map that we put in is based on these drawings that we did as part of the plan and that shows a much larger area than 300 feet. There is a 300 foot, I'm not going to dispute that, that's talked about in the plan but that's not what it says universally. If you follow this line throughout the Bluff Creek Overlay District, there isn't a 300 foot. Again it moves sometimes closer, sometimes further. Again based on topography. It's not all tree related. I would concur with that. Sometimes there's a large wetland expanse that it also picks up as a part of the creek, so there isn't an automatic dimension... Councilman Peterson: And this plan was in fact completed when? 3 years ago? 9XI 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Kate Aanenson: More than that. Bob Generous: '96. Kate Aanenson: Again that's a plan. The plan is just that. The implementation tool is the ordinance and that's what we're referring back to citing what the ordinance says. How to, and it's adopted in the code, and that's the tool that you follow. A plan is not the rule. It's the intent, some of the intent statements but then it was put clearly into the ordinance that you need to follow to identify based on the map that we adopted. Take that. We're saying, you can go back and give us evidence on where that is based on what we believe it, you know tentatively it is. We've identified it, to go out and say yes, this is acceptable. Not in the right place. Give us the evidence to show us that. Mayor Furlong: And so just for clarification then. Is it, is there some discretion that's available with regard to where the line is, or. Kate Aanenson: ...say you know what, while that may be the line, we're going to allow you to encroach in it. Certainly you have that ability to say that, and you know. Mayor Furlong: And have they gone through that effort to delineate then? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And that's what was agreed to and what staff is presenting here? Bob Generous: That's where we came up with the primary zone boundary. That's staffs recommendation if you will. We met in the field with the representative, from the firm that represents them and said this is. Mayor Furlong: And did they concur at that time in the field? Bob Generous: Yeah, they believed that that edge, because if you move from the map that was part of the plan to what staffs proposing, we shifted the line north also. Kate Aanenson: Yes. If you look at that map, we also agreed the line should probably move north, but not to the 300 foot. Mayor Furlong: So the line that's shown here as staffs recommendation is north of what was on the original map? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Bob Generous: Correct. 34 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Kate Aanenson: That's correct, and that was based on us meeting on site with the professionals, with our forester, our wetland person to say is this the appropriate place. Does this make some sense? Mayor Furlong: Mr. Simning, was that, I mean. Todd Simning: That is correct that we did do that, but if you look at all our plans, I mean basically we've said that when we were out there, we just took their recommendation and that's why all our plans actually show, this is where kind of the proposed primary is and here's where we believe it to be. So part of it's true. It's just the rest of the story. Mayor Furlong: And then but the pink line, which is where you're saying you propose, what are the natural features that support that line? Todd Simning: Okay, which plan? Mayor Furlong: I'm sticking with the color one. I like color. So as I understand this, we've got an orange one that is the primary area as defined by staff, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong on any of these assumptions, which goes through those 3 units. And then there's the pink line just to the, just above that. It's a little more straight. Todd Simning: Just to the north of it, yes. Mayor Furlong: Just to the north that's your proposed. Todd Sinning: That's our proposed, yes. Mayor Furlong: And what are the natural features that define that line? Todd Simning: The natural features that... Mayor Furlong: The pink one. Todd Simning: Define this line right here? Mayor Furlong: Yes. Todd Simning: Actually there isn't, you know besides just being in the tree line, or inside the trees, that's the only determination that any of us have been made on, or have been making on where the primary line is. There isn't anything special of that except that there are some significant trees right in that area, and again that is something that we want to preserve ourselves. If that makes sense anyway. Mayor Furlong: I think so. 35 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Todd Simning: Again I want to reiterate that we're not, even though we're asking that line to be moved backwards to what we want to see, we are not taking any significant trees out of that area. Mayor Furlong: Did anybody else have a, I've got just a couple follow-up questions. Sorry Mr. Ayotte. On the hammer head issue. Mr. Saam, if we take out that condition but include a condition that all units will be sprinkled, does that deal with the issues from an engineering and safety standpoint? Matt Saam: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: I ask this question of Kate and Bob too. Are you comfortable with that? Bob Generous: Yes. Mayor Furlong: If the hammer head condition came out but we include a condition that all units would be sprinkled, which it sounds like they're going to do anyways so it's not anything adding to the applicant, that would be okay for us? Bob Generous: Mark agreed to that also. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Ahight. And then, I guess the other question I have Mr. Simning, at the Planning Commission on March 2°a, through all this, and I think this is where this map came out, right after that. You commented about the fact that you had moved the road to the east to save the trees on the west, and that you'd come back with two 3 unit buildings to eliminate the one at the end, and shift everything over enough to try to accommodate that. That being saving the trees on the west. The picture I'm looking at here has a 4 unit and a 3 unit. What changed? Todd Simning: Four units fit. We didn't know it at the time, that's the only thing that changed. We weren't certain if they would fit or not and it actually did. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Sacchet, the Commissioner Chair of the Planning Commission is here tonight. Is there anything that you'd like to add to clean up the mud? A little bit. Councilman Peterson: Do you have any more new plans? Uli Sacchet: No more plans. No more plans. I'm Uli Sacchet, Chairman of the Planning Commission and we were very excited about it because I think it has a lot of qualities to it. It's a lot of quality in the approach they've taken. A lot of diligence. As you can see by the number of plans, several tree inventories, what have you. We sent it back. We tabled it first because we had some questions, the placement of the NURP pond, which was somewhat looked at here. The concern about the primary zone and so forth, and we wanted that studied a little further and then it came back to the Planning Commission and it kind of fell apart on us, to be honest with you. It seemed to have gone opposite than 36 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 what we would have wanted to see. Rather than solidifying it and focusing it, it was even more, the issues more mushroomed rather than they got settled We, I think everybody agrees that this is a relatively sensitive area environmentally, so we want to find the right balance how we deal with that. And the fundamental question is what's the reasonable use? And one thing we always are faced with quite often from the Planning Commission, applicants come in front of us, the interest of the applicant is to find the maximum use, and the maximum use is not necessarily the reasonable use and I guess that's the difficult thing, the balance to find. Where it really fell apart on us is with the question of the primary zone. We felt when this question was raised, where is the primary zone, that was really not within our reach of the Planning Commission to try to settle that and that combined with the time pressures that seemed to be on this project, seemed to force our hand that we had to recommend denial of it. And there are some other issues, but the thing with the primary zone is actually quite striking. It only came out towards the end of the discussion that he just had, and actually the developer makes a very credible, very convincing strong case with the 300 foot distance and how it is with the neighboring developments and all that. However, when we went back to the actual Bluff Creek Overlay document, the line is not even east/west. It actually tilts down to the south on the 41 side, so the line has been shifted around quite significantly already to accommodate development, and with the density transfer to balance it into what we may ultimately term reasonable use. But that's something as a Planning Commission we didn't want to deal with, but then there are the other things. The aspects of the access from Century Trail, because I think Councilman Labatt had a very good point. The reason why there's this grade is because you basically have two rows of buildings and inbetween you fill up enough dirt so you can call them walkouts, because you get into the buildings high enough so that then in the back of the building you come down a story lower. And that's what people want to buy. I mean that's in the interest of the developer. However in terms of safety, maybe not just, I mean one aspect we also consider is to have both accesses. You actually have the Century and on the front here, but those are all issues that we felt we didn't have time to really discuss sufficiently and pin down, They were just thrown up and given the applicant made a very diligent effort to settle these things down, but from the Planning Commission side, we didn't feel we had the time to really cook this and then make it solid. Another aspect is with the grading. The first proposal that came in front of us had 50 percent of their site graded. We tried to be more sensitive to the environment. The second one came and there's 70 percent graded. Then to make matters more muddy, it seemed like the same amount of trees were saved, even though they're 20 percent more graded, and so the math didn't add up and that all contributed to our recommendation to deny. Plus the more significant trees, the bigger the impact. It's really the real significant trees that get hit the hardest. When one of the reasons why we recommended looking at placing the NURP pond, the storm pond where currently the barn is, where it's a little bit of an opening in the trees, is that in that area it's not that much significant trees. It's more the box elder types. More the smaller ones. The idea was not to ram it right into the woods, but to use it in that area. Again, whether that really has sufficiently been studied, I don't know. Overall from the Planning Commission side we were a little disappointed with what came back to us and really in summary felt our hand was forced through the time line, that we had to make a recommendation to deny under the circumstances. Now what's, several of these 37 0 9 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 questions have been addressed further. The one with the Century Trail access. The one with the moving the units further east to have more buffer on the, between 41 and the development, which by the way that buffer was in the first proposal. Somehow on the second one it kind of moved over, and now it moved back again but in the process all of a sudden we have 4 unit and 3 unit buildings in there, which is a decision that you have to take, whether that really fits in there in the context of the development around it. That's probably all I have. I don't know if you have any questions for this specifically to what we discussed in the Planning Commission but it's a little bit over, all over the place right now this thing so I hope you guys can pin it down. Wish you luck with that, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Good, any questions for the commissioner? Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I just have one more question of staff. Could you guys pull out, is there anything up there that gives me a better picture tonight of where the rest of the development and what the density is around it? We got the twin homes immediately to the east, but. Kate Aanenson: This is the subject site. Then you've got Pulte Homes, which is I believe less than 16 units an acre. Then you've got Vasserman Ridge which is a. Councilman Peterson: I'm talking immediately, adjacent to it. We've got the twin homes. Kate Aanenson: To the north end you have, just on the north side is single family. Pardon me? 3.5. And then on the north side of that, which would be the Longacres subdivision I believe is 1.96. Just under 2. Councilman Peterson: Where are the units directly to the south? I guess there isn't any in the south. Bob Generous: Arboretum Village which is 8.7. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Then across the street we did the density transfer with the church, and there are a few single family lots outside of the Longacres development, a couple of lots. Councilman Peterson: The reason why I ask, I do remember us them to put twin homes on the north side to lower the density to make that transition. Kate Aanenson: That is correct. That was a big issue. Bob Generous: Arboretum Village, the overall net density was 5.7 units per acre. Kate Aanenson: But on the north side. 93 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Councilman Labatt: The north side. Bob Generous: 3.5. Councilman Peterson: You remember the conversation Steve. Councilman Labatt: Very much. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, it was a heated one to decrease the density even more. Mayor Furlong: And I guess just for clarification, I know I read it. What is the density of this one? Pick a version. Bob Generous: 3.1. Mayor Furlong: 3.1? That's the current alternative that's being proposed? Bob Generous: At 18 units, yes. 3.18. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions? Councilman Labatt: No, comments. Mayor Furlong: We're getting to that. Let's get through, and there may be some questions as we go through the comments. Alright, why don't we bring it back to council for comments. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I'm just going to address one real quickly hereon that hammer head. I feel very strongly that if this project, and if is used very loosely, goes through tonight, the hammer head has to stay in there. Up in Knob Hill, the Hageman's have a very similar situation where cars making deliveries or visitors, as they come down there, they're going to be using people's private driveways as turn around's unless we provide a hammer head down there. Some of us on the council and staff got served with a subpoena over Ms. Hageman's issue there and it's, I think very important that it stays in there. To avoid another neighborhood that complains about vehicles turning around. Just wanted to bring that up right away. Mayor Furlong: Any other comments? Councilman Labatt: I'll write some down, yeah. I will have more but go ahead. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other comments? At this point. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I'm struggling, and I think staff has presented a good argument as to why we shouldn't take, and have those 3 units in there for the tree line, and I understand that and we're, you know part of what was offered, are we really getting 919 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 anything unique and distinctive? I'm sure they'll be well built and nice but they are pretty typical to what is being offered around, so that was one of the factors that we're willing to give more if we get something. I don't know if, we haven't focused much on architecture tonight but it seems as though they're pretty, you know they're good quality but they're typical. Okay. I would be leaning towards not moving on that tree line, however in just looking at it, I like the one where, this one. Alright, whatever you want to call this one. I'm going to call it A, alright. Where they saved more trees on 41 and moved the road seemingly to the east. I would certainly be amenable to adding a third unit to, I haven't got a lot number here but, Lot number 2, to spread that out. To tum that in there. The other thing that, and my mind is still processing, what I don't like, if we take out, this is Lot 3, right? Councilman Labatt: Yep. Councilman Peterson: If we take that out, you know look at the development then. You've got unit, unit, unit, unit, unit and then open. It doesn't look great. I haven't addressed that in my mind yet, but if this one unit can be moved over to accommodate that, I'd like to see that. Kate, do you understand my point? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilman Peterson: And you're smiling for no particular reason I assume but adding more work. 1 Kate Aanenson: I'm thinking about the look. I'm just you know, there's a lot of different ways to slice that so, to make it look good. I mean whether you put a gazebo or something in there to balance it out or... Councilman Peterson: And that's what I need to hear. I mean is there ways to mitigate that? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Councilman Peterson: You know so at the end of the day I understand the 300 foot line. I understand where staff is there. We put that primary zone in years ago, and I think we need a more compelling reason to change it, so those are my humble thoughts this evening. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: I'm a little concerned about the vacillation that's gone back and forth. First of all I hear the engineering say yeah, it's a good idea if we go 10 percent versus 14 percent. And then I heard again that no, it's a bad idea because of the headlight issue so there's a little vacillation going back and forth and I understand, because everybody's got their back to the wall to try to get something done by a time line, that's fine but I don't feel comfortable in pushing through a project because of time line issues 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 when we have all the changes that have occurred. I know people have been working towards trying to make things happen, but when I see right in the middle of the effort a change in position, that we reinforces my thought that maybe some things have not been thought through as well as they need to be. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I'll just keep mine short and say that I concur with Councilman Peterson. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything more? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Just a couple of comments. At times it's, we've heard the comment up here we're shooting at a moving target here. And a couple things I'm going to point out right away that it's funny how things change over time. 1996 when this Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan was established, the property owner Ms. McAllister was on the steering committee, and now I'm having difficulty in the fact that things are being interpreted differently now by their representative of the 300 foot and that. Mr. Sacchet brought up an idea which in essence makes an entrance off of Century Trail, yet keeping the exit so to speak, or right-infright-out onto West 78m. I think there's a lot of ideas and plans that we've talked about here tonight that need to be explored by the developer, and the property owner. That being one of them right there. So I would, I'm not in favor at all of moving the primary line. That's been established and I would like to, if the applicant's willing to give a written extension, and give them some direction to go back and explore that, with a good, hard look at that entrance and exit off of Century Trail. We had some long discussions back in the Pulte day on that specific topic, and we're not doing that justice today with what we went through 3 years ago. And if the applicant is not willing to do it, then I would support going along with the Planning Commission's recommendation of denying it. Mayor Furlong: It's clear that, and Councilman Labatt talked about hitting a moving target and that's what this has been and I think that was part of the disappointment and frustration at the Planning Commission and with staff and probably with the applicant too, and clearly I think that's been our challenge tonight. What I look at here, and I'm not, I don't know that I'm prepared at this point to allow the encroachment into the primary zone. I look at how it's been delineated or proposed by the applicant and I think that line effectively just accommodates this development as much as others, while preserving the major trees. There are items that need to be explored. The open area off Century Trail there, if memory serves is really a berm with a few pine trees on it. I don't know that that was explored, and again if the difference is just because they're walkouts instead of lookouts, if the lookouts could accommodate that dual access. I guess though what, from a concept of taking the capacity of the property, which the applicant has said is 18. We haven't as a city staff we haven't really verified that but let's assume, and going back to reasonable use versus maximum use, that that's the maximum use at 18. And maybe there's something a little less than that. What we are accomplishing or what 41 • 9 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 the applicant is assisting us in accomplishing is getting out of that primary zone short of, I mean I guess the alternative would be a decision to buy it or to. Kate Aanenson: Or give relief through the variance which is what they were requesting. Mayor Furlong: Or relief through variance, okay. But in terms of location outside of that zone. I mean overall I like the concept of transferring the density to the southern part of the property so that we can accomplish what the applicant has said in terms of preserving the trees and enhancing the beauty of their property and as well, and getting it out of the primary zone, so I like that concept but what I'm hearing from council members, from staff and from Planning Commission is that we haven't gone through the steps necessary to get the best plan in place. This is a version but it continues to move. I guess I would ask the applicant, I know you were asked at the March 2°d Planning Commission but would you be willing to give a written extension on this project so we can explore some of these issues that have been addressed and raised this evening and since the Planning Commission? Todd Simning: I don't think I can actually answer that right now. I'd have to go back and my business partner and I would talk about it. Talk to our attorneys. Find out what their thoughts are, and at that point I guess make a determination but if you're asking me to make a decision right here, I think our deadline is April Yd so I mean we could by April Yd but tonight I couldn't make that decision. Kate Aanenson: That's not your next regular meeting. I think our next regular meeting is... Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry Kate, could you. Kate Aanenson: I think your next regular meeting would be April 12d', so you don't have a meeting before then. Just to be clear. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess then the you know, there are a lot of questions up here versus just definitive conclusions. I think again to restate, I think this is a good working document. I don't know that we've reached the point of approval from approving the change in land use and though I'm open to that for these purposes of pushing the dwellings to the southern part of the lot, we've got to deal with the primary zone, access to the property perhaps from Century Trail, but there are residents over there that may be interested in that. Kate Aanenson: Correct,...have another public hearing and invite them to come in. Mayor Furlong: Exactly, and they may have looked at this and said well there's no connection to Century Trail so you know it's fine with me. So there are issues there that we're going to have to address. Councilman Peterson. 42 • • City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Councilman Peterson: Roger, can we, we can vote on this this evening and make our respective motion and get a second and either approve or deny it, and we can reconsider it within a timeframe at a later date, can't we? Roger Knutson: Yes. The answer is yes. There's one thing though, you need findings for your, either your approval or your denial. Because of the unique characteristics of this. I know there are findings in here but I think we would want to amend those to make them consistent with what your discussion is, and I think that'd be kind of important on this project. So one thing, just to, I heard what the Mayor said about getting an extension. I heard what the applicant said. You could direct city staff and myself to prepare findings consistent with, and I'm not going to fill in that blank. Approval or denial, and call a special meeting prior to April I" to act on that. And then second, if the applicant grants an extension, and that extension is received by Friday of this week, and the extension gives us a reasonable time to the end of April, then you don't need this special meeting. That's a multi faceted recommendation but. Councilman Peterson: It matches this whole process. Councilman Ayotte: I don't feel comfortable with that at all. Roger Knutson: We need to have findings for approval or denial. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Where do we want to go with this one? Roger Knutson: If you wanted to make it absolutely simple, then you could just say direct preparation of findings consistent with this and you could have a special meeting which I would recommend. Today is Tuesday, on Monday of next week. Councilman Labatt: Well the purpose of the special meeting would be to. Roger Knutson: Adopt the findings. Councilman Labatt: Adopt the findings. Or are we telling Plowshares to come back with option, or alternative what? I don't know what number they're on. Councilman Peterson: Well why dissimilar couldn't we. Mayor Furlong: Go ahead. Councilman Peterson: Approve staff's recommendation with the caveat that with staff's discretion and with the developer's, we could add a third unit to the Lot number 2. That's my opinion. Again I'm not as concerned about the road. If the staff says the road is okay where it is, I'm concerned, I'll let them, let that go. That would be my motion. Whether or not it's seconded and voted on, because I don't know what we're going to get. If none of us are really enthusiastic about going into the primary zone, they're not going to come back with anything other than maybe one more unit in Lot 2, so. 43 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Councilman Labatt: But I think though Craig, it comes down to you know, maximization versus what's best for the property and this is something here where it appears to be maximization, but maybe there's another alternative that they can come back with with a few less units. With a road that was talked about 4 years ago. 3 years ago when we did Pulte. There's alternatives and options that we need to look at before we go and approve it. This definitely has good aspects to it. I'm not against the project at all. There's things under there that I'd like to see that we look at more. Councilman Peterson: And Steve, I don't disagree with you but I guess my attitude is, I'd rather see less roads there in developments than more roads is safety is addressed. So again I'm not focusing on that. I'm just presenting, this is where my head is at and whether anybody else's head is there is up to discussion obviously and voting but I think what we have to move this ahead is what I'm hearing. So how we move it ahead is the challenge. I offered one alternative. I don't know if there's another one there that can be offered. Councilman Ayotte: If I may. I've seen staff working hard. There's still a little bit too much ambiguity for me. I've seen the developer working hard to a point. I've seen the commission working very, very hard but again I'll use the term vacillation. A lot of back and forth and we're working towards a time line, and the intent ought to be the best application. And I heard the developer say, he was not willing to concede because he has to have a chit chat with his partner. His partner has a cell phone, to see if there'd be a willingness to extend, and I heard no. There's not a willingness to extend so therefore it influences me on my what my willingness is. So that's my point. I don't see a concession here. I'm feeling pressured and I don't want to be pressured so if he's not willing to give us an extension, I would prefer, if we have to go ahead and do the findings, we do that. Meet next Monday and I know what my vote will be. Mayor Furlong: Weren't there findings prepared by the Planning Commission in their denial? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. I think we'd want to modify those based on your. Mayor Furlong: On our comments? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. There was pro and con, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alight. Kate Aanenson: There's just some additional discussion that's taken place. Mayor Furlong: And Councilman Peterson, if I understand your most recent comments, adopting staff's recommendation would be to take out the 3 units in Block 3 that currently encroach into the plan, but allowing an additional unit to be built on the Block 0 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 2, which is currently the only 2 unit item, if that can be done with consistent architecture but remain completely outside the primary plat. Councilman Labatt: In the setback from the primary? I think they said they can't do it. Councilman Peterson: I didn't hear that. Maybe I missed it but. Mayor Furlong: Well and the question is at what level of setback at 40 feet. Kate and Bob, I'm guessing it's Block 4. The 3 units near the green area on our Exhibit A. Are those. Kate Aanenson: Let's just make sure we're all tracking the same. So you're talking about taking this unit, shifting it over to that. Mayor Furlong: If it can stay back. The unit to. Kate Aanenson: You would just drop the 2 units. Mayor Furlong: The 3 units Kate to the east of there, those 3 units. Do those require the setback variance of 40 down to 20? Bob Generous: Yes they do. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Without going through 10 pages, I agree with Steve's hammer head. I think we need that in there. Absolutely, and if it's not in there let's put that in there too. Councilman Lundquist: It's in there already. Councilman Peterson: That's what I thought. Mayor Furlong: The applicant asked for that to be removed... Councilman Peterson: I think he asked, he wants one but he doesn't necessarily want to go at the city code. Mayor Furlong: Right. So I mean to reach some resolution here, and I guess I'm not necessarily in favor of a special meeting. And so to reach some resolution, if there's, you know from a comment standpoint and such, I mean if we went with staff's recommendation, which would be the elimination of the 3 units on Block 3. And staff I think was also recommending the variance to the 20 foot setback, if I'm not mistaken. So 45 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 that would allow those 3 units and 4 to remain and within that same 20 feet variance, if they could accommodate a, now this is preliminary platting correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So it comes back as final at some point in time. Mayor Furlong: You know if that, if an additional unit could be added to Block 2 still within that 20 foot variance, is that what I'm hearing you saying and I'm seeing staff nod their head. Kate Aanenson: Yep, yep. Mayor Furlong: I know the applicant's waiting to speak but you've got to give us a minute here. ...the calendar to move forward with what essentially is going to be a concept. And if they can accommodate those factors within the final plat, or final, then that would work. Is that, Councilman Peterson, am I fairly summarizing you? Summarizing? I think I spoke longer than you. Councilman Peterson: Fairly summarizing me. Mayor Furlong: And long windedly summarizing. Mr. Simning, you had something to add. Todd Simning: First off, before you guys would make any motion I'd like to understand exactly what you would be possibly proposing, that would be number one. Just one minute. Number two, just a couple items that were mentioned here that everybody seems to be up against the gun on timing and things haven't been adequately looked at. Between staff and ourselves and going back to Planning Commission on probably 6 different plans, we really have looked at, at least us internally have looked at so many different options. I just want, I'd like you guys to know that we really have looked at everything, and things haven't been just haphazardly said oh, I guess we don't want to do that. And that was, it's been one of the frustrations for us as an applicant. I know this is a difficult parcel to develop because us as developers, you know again as you're looking at maximizing you know and what you guys consider maximizing or doing regular, or how would I say? Maximizing or doing you know what would look best or be best, you know obviously we know what's going to sell there. We need lots that are priced at a certain amount. This isn't a $450 to $500,000 townhouse neighborhood that would be placed here, and so the considerations that we've had, I want you guys to understand this, when we're looking at walkouts, we didn't force any walkouts. Our elevations were all predicated on the elevation of the water level in the pond and so as the pond was at this, and we knew that our openings had to be at, or our finished floors had to be here, it just worked out to be walkouts. We really didn't force anything to be there and I think that's Councilman Labatt has mentioned that a few different times and I just want you guys to know that. Understand that. So these things internally have really been talked about and 46 • s City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 we've been through this so I guess that, I just wanted to make certain you guys are clear about that. Mayor Furlong: Sure, thank you. Todd Simning: And then lastly, if I could understand. No, before you go there, I've got one more question. If I could understand exactly if we would grant an extension, when would it that we could be back here to talk to you guys and to show you any plans that are revised. I guess I don't understand, does that mean you're not going to see for 60 or 90 days because I'm going to be put off, or does that mean that we would work diligently through something and we would have the opportunity to be up here sooner than later? Kate Aanenson: Maybe we talk about the first thing first. The plan that we got—because I would agree with his first statement. We worked very hard to get to where we are today. So, just to be clear again on this plan, I think that Bob pointed out in the beginning, from the beginning to make this project work there's a little remnant here. The city in good faith has worked to ... so we have worked in good faith to try to accommodate some of these things. My understanding of what they're saying now is that these 3 units would go away. If you can come back on a final plat and make one of these units attach over here, they'd be willing to look at that, with the same variance you're getting over here for those 2 units. Todd Simning: So basically lose 2 units? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Todd Simning: Okay. Kate Aanenson: That seems like what they're formulating. Councilman Ayotte: And then there was the ingresslegress issue that was. Councilman Lundquist: Hammer head you're talking about? Councilman Ayotte: The hammer head issue? Todd Simning: And the hammer head to us, we do want a hammer head there. It was, because we want people to be able to tum around. The only thing that we asked for was that it didn't have to be a city standard for the fire truck per se. That was all. Councilman Labatt: What's your reason for not wanting to do that? Todd Simning: Just that, what do you call it? The size of it on the turn around right here, we actually don't have enough room to accomplish that with what we have right here. 47 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Kate Aanenson: Can I get clarification on that? So if my understanding is you're agreeing to fire sprinkle. Todd Simning: Yep. Kate Aanenson: So that meets the fire marshal's requirements so if he still wants to put a tum around in there, that's fine with us. I mean the issue is, if it's not to city standards he has to accommodate that in another way, which he is agreeing to in fire sprinkling so that makes it a moot issue. Councilman Labatt: Well I think that I'm still trying to avoid a Debra Hageman situation. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, he's providing the tum around. He wants the same thing. Todd Simning: We want it. We want a hammer head. Councilman Labatt: The question is, how big of a turn around are you going to provide. One for a semi delivery truck? A 28 foot panel van? Maybe delivering, that's the situation we have. Where the panel van couldn't turn around. They had to use a private driveway. Ed Hasek: It will accommodate a panel van. Kate Aanenson: I think what we can do, if we come back, if you're still planning on the same motion when we come back under final plat, if we can look at that internally to give something that ... work with engineering, minimizing as much as we can to get it big enough that it works. That's the goal. Todd Simning: During, I mean we had a need for this just because of during construction there's not, we need room for guys to be able to move in and move out and we actually specifically used the turn around here to set two dumpsters down in, and so the dumpsters that we get, those 30 yard containers, are pretty long themselves and pretty wide, so we're going to need it to be large enough to set two of those in there anyway. So we're not really looking, I'm not looking to really make it that much smaller. I just want to make certain that I have that flexibility I guess to, if it's not city standard, that's all. Councilman Ayotte: What was the 78th Street issue that was discussed before? Steve you brought that up. Kate Aanenson: The connection. Councilman Labatt: The connection, yeah. Kate Aanenson: And if we do do that then I believe that we're obligated to go back and hold a public hearing, as the Mayor indicated. The neighbors adjacent to it probably W 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 didn't anticipate it. Again it's city property that we're taking out that we had tipped for extraction for parks so that's kind of one of the reasons why we didn't see that connection. One, there's a grade difference, and as Uli indicated ... to create walkouts. There is a change naturally and when we did Pulte, at that time the co -applicant on this site wanted it to be left up or do a petting farm, so we didn't the road isn't really angled the right way. While it would have been nice, I think at this point, based on that type of development, it's a public. Right now as it's being proposed, it's a different street width. The other street is a public street. It draws a big change in that it now becomes a public street. It has huge implications. We did look at that. Now we're back to a whole different design if we make that a public street, so at that point, we agree that it probably makes sense to leave it private. Not make the connection based on grading. Going back into city owned park property. The implications to the existing neighborhood. Kind of where Craig was going. Councilman Ayotte: Go back to your question, if we did request an extension, what would be the date where we would come back and make sure he's not waiting forever and a day? When was that? Councilman Labatt: 30 days ... to Todd. Councilman Ayotte: 30 days? Councilman Peterson: I guess what are we gaining by that? Kate Aanenson: I don't know, well we also have to have a public hearing with, on this other street. Mayor Furlong: The question is what we're asking for. Kate Aanenson: I don't think we can do that in 30 days. I'm not sure. Because we have to notice the neighbors and get it on the Planning Commission, or back to the council. You didn't want to hold the public hearing here. I don't know, assuming we probably remand it back to the Planning Commission because it's changed the site plan. So I would say 60 days would probably be more likely. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson, with regards to the findings of facts that are in our packet, these speak to a 15 unit development. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Are they consistent with staff's recommendation? Kate Aanenson: Correct, except you'd add the one more unit if you went with what's being floated. Roger Knutson: Are you talking about the findings for approval? 49 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Yes. So, and if there are additional findings that we can pull from the minutes of the meeting, if we're moving forward. I mean I guess, can we, give us some flexibility here. If we approve these subject to amendment at our next meeting if staff can find some additional findings of fact, does that provide us, get this done within the timeframe. Roger Knutson: If you want to approve it, that would work just fine. What you'd do is you could move, if this is what you're going to do, move approval to subject to whatever conditions you have directing staff to take the existing findings and discussion of this meeting and massage those findings consistent with tonight, and bring them back for the findings approval next time. Mayor Furlong: And that does not have to be done prior to the deadline? Roger Knutson: No. Not the findings in that situation. Mayor Furlong: The decision has to be made? Roger Knutson: Right. For approval. Councilman Peterson: Just for clarification that motion would be relative to the motion number 3 probably, preliminary plat, right? Roger Knutson: I believe the conditions. Councilman Peterson: We're adding a couple conditions and subject to the facts of findings on the motion number 3 which would be granting preliminary plat approval. Roger Knutson: The findings are all, they're together. They wouldn't have to be but they've been bunched and that's fine. Councilman Ayotte: Just go with the preliminary plat would avoid the concern about a public hearing. Councilman Peterson: Well, public hearing isn't the issue of what we're talking about. Councilman Ayotte: I thought for the time line issue though. Councilman Peterson: The time line issue isn't an issue if we move this ahead tonight. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, one other thing you should know is that this is a land use amendment. You're going to need four votes. 50 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Roger Knutson: That's with that one aspect. The rest are simple majority. Mayor Furlong: And the land use is to change it from guided low density to medium, and that approval, if I saw it correctly, that is conditioned upon this site plan. So it doesn't provide someone from not pursuing this site plan and coming back and saying we want to do the whole thing medium. Kate Aanenson: That's correct, Mayor Furlong: That land use change would only allow for this plan to move forward. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Ahight. Councilman Ayotte: I shouldn't have gone to the bathroom. In order for me to get this comfortable with everyone, could you delineate for me the points that, one more time, so I'm not losing what the conditions are that we're focusing on. Councilman Peterson: We can do that in a motion probably. Councilman Ayotte: I want to hear this sucker. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson, you want to, are you comfortable going forward, attempting a motion then based upon what you're proposing? Councilman Peterson: I think in my mind I know how I'd like to move forward. Let's give it a shot. Mayor Furlong: Well let's give it a shot and start with something. If the motion's made and seconded and council members want to try to amend it, we can do so. Councilman Peterson: Okay, and the first motion I would make, which I don't think we have a real issue with, would be that City Council approves the land use amendment from residential low density to residential medium density contingent upon final approval of a PUD and Metropolitan Council review and approval of the land use amendment. And that's just rezoning it. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Councilman Labatt: Is this the one that takes 4 out of 5, right? Councilman Peterson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. 51 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 • Kate Aanenson: Just to be clear, that's what ... is referring to this can do without... Mayor Furlong: Specific to this project, okay. Alright. Is there discussion on that? I guess my thought is, given that it is solely conditioned upon this project and conditioned upon the final approval, which will incorporate where I think we're going to go, I would support it. I would not support changing the land use for the entire parcel without that contingent to medium density. Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, I'm sorry. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I'm still not happy with the fact that we're not looking at the road. What the council did when I was on and Craig were on, 3 years with Pulte. I plan to vote no on everything because I'm not pleased with what we're doing here. We're going to throw a band aid on this thing and the old saying is, the broken clock is right twice a day. Well we're a broken clock right now. We're not doing justice to this project by approving this like this. So I think that the Planning Commission has stated quite clear to us that they're not happy with it. They're confused with it. They had hoped that March 2°d Plowshares would come back with something other than what they came back with and it confused them more and now we're confused upon their confusion and we're just making a hap hazard decision here and going to throw this through approval. Councilman Peterson: I'm not making a hap hazard decision. I think I'm making an informed decision. I just don't happen to agree with you on the road. Everything else I think we're on the same page on. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other discussion? Hearing none on the motion for the land use amendment. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves the Land Use Amendment from Residential, Low Density to Residential, Medium Density contingent upon final development approval of this planned unit development and Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Land Use Amendment. Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Labatt and Councilman Ayotte voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Furlong: The motion passes 3-2 but not sufficient majority, is that correct? Roger Knutson: Motion fails. Mayor Furlong: Motion fails? Okay. Is there any other motions at this point? Councilman Peterson: Is there any necessity to based upon this? Roger Knutson: Mayor, since you, with this motion failing and everything else, cascading cards as you understand, and they all fail. Now we will need findings of fact 52 0 0 City Council Meeting —March 22, 2004 consistent with denial. And we'll need to recommend, recommend a 5 minute meeting to adopt those findings. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Should we go through the additional motions at this point or should we set the findings of fact? We're going to need time to prepare those findings of fact, is that correct? Roger Knutson: Yes we are. I'll need a couple, few days. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Roger Knutson: If you wanted to call, let's see today is Tuesday. Councilman Labatt: Monday. Roger Knutson: Monday. You can call a special meeting for Monday. Mayor Furlong: And I don't know about other people's schedules but Monday doesn't work so. Councilman Peterson: It doesn't for me either. Mayor Furlong: So we may have to find another meeting. Roger Knutson: Tuesday? Mayor Furlong: Does Tuesday next week, the 27`s work? Not for you? Wednesday the 28`s? Councilman Lundquist: No, none of the days other than Monday next week are good. Mayor Furlong: Monday is the only day? Councilman Peterson: We just need 3 people right? Councilman Lundquist: Yep, you only need 3. Mayor Furlong: I might have been in the wrong month. Councilman Peterson: I feel like I am already. Councilman Lundquist: Monday the 29th. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. So Tuesday is the 30th. Is that, other than Councilman Lundquist, would everybody else be available? 53 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Councilman Labatt: My palm pilot's dead so I don't have my calendar. Mayor Furlong: You'd better be available. Councilman Labatt: Monday's bad for you Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes sir. Councilman Ayotte: Time wise, do we have, can you zero in on a time? Councilman Peterson: We can call it any time. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, I've got to take care of a plane issue so. Mayor Furlong: 6:00. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Or 7:00. Councilman Peterson: Earlier the better for me but I don't have my palm pilot with me so. Mayor Furlong: We need 3 days to call a special meeting? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay, what I would ask is that tomorrow morning the council members get their calendars to the City Manager. Councilman Labatt: Let's call a meeting for that date and could we just name a time? Mayor Furlong: If that works, but there may be. Councilman Labatt: Tuesday would work, I just don't know what time. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Let's get our calendars to Mr. Gerhardt and with the goal of having a special meeting on the 30`s and if for some reason that doesn't work for everybody, then we will find another date before the P. Roger Knutson: And then if you wanted to just simply direct staff to prepare findings consistent with denial of the various items related to on Bluff Creek Project for your consideration at your special meeting coming up. M 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Without objection, can we do it that way? Without objection. Staff's so directed. Do we need to go through the motion now Mr. Knutson with regard to the other? Roger Knutson: No, because that will be on your amendment. Mayor Furlong: Those will be part of the findings of fact, all the other four? Roger Knutson: And then you can adopt the findings and act on all aspects of the project. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Just for point of clarification. This project is basically dead now because their zoning that is on this parcel will not allow that, correct? Councilman Peterson: We won't see it again, if we see it again, for a couple months. Mayor Furlong: It would have to start through the process. Councilman Lundquist: Public hearing, Planning Commission, all that work that's been put in is just. Councilman Ayotte: It's not gone. They build on it. Councilman Peterson: It's probably gone for this year. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt: In comment to that I guess, we have the option of getting an extension of which was an option that didn't go so. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson? Would the council have the option at the special meeting to reconsider the motion that just failed? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Alright. Roger Knutson: But you'll have to put that on the agenda because it will be a special meeting. Mayor Furlong: So we have to specifically identify what we're going to do? Roger Knutson: Yes, you have to work off of a specific agenda. Unlike a regular meeting like tonight. 55 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Councilman Ayotte: With that reconsideration though wouldn't we need, it would take 4. Councilman Lundquist: It would take you or Steve to make the motion for reconsideration. Mayor Furlong: Because they were on the prevailing side. Roger Knutson: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: And it would take, without myself, it will take all four because 3 out of 4 is not sufficient. Todd Gerhardt: Could we take a 5 minute break right now? Mayor Furlong: I think that'd be great. Let's take a 5 minute recess subject to the call of the Mayor. (Mayor Furlong catted a 5 minute recess at this point in the meeting.) Mayor Furlong: Call the meeting back to order. While we were on recess, Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: Mayor, I had a discussion with the applicants and they've signed an extension. I believe that is correct. We have that signed by everyone? So if you want to give that time, some time to work and work through the process, then I would recommend this first, you already have a motion that's been acted upon to deny the land use plan amendment. To keep that alive, what you, if someone wanted to they could move to reconsider and if that motion to reconsider passes, then it comes right back in front of you and then you can table that with everything else. Councilman Ayotte: Can we have discussion on the extension before that or do we have to go through the, this motion first? Roger Knutson: You can have the discussion on the extension first if you want. Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to hear what that's all about so that I'm comfortable. Roger Knutson: It's a 60 day extension for the applicant to consider everything you've said here tonight and consider amendments to the proposal. Councilman Ayotte: In terms of seasonal issues and so forth, is that a crunch? The 60 days? I want an extension but I don't want to be. Councilman Peterson: It's up to. 56 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Councilman Ayotte: Oh, up to. Todd Sinning: Yeah, it's up to 60 days so if we could actually act further quicker we'd love to. Councilman Peterson: And I'd like to request that they get on the next meeting, if we can. I mean I'll state that. Councilman Labatt: Well I don't know if that's going to get my questions answered enough to bring up a possible reconsideration motion. I'd like to. Councilman Peterson: But I think they know what they need to address to you, and it's addressing your's and Bob's desire. If you don't feel as though they've accomplished that, then that's up to them. Councilman Labatt: I've heard that in order to look at doing the road they're going to have a public hearing with the neighbors and they're not going to get that within the next meeting. So I mean that's my comfort level has to be broken. I need to see some more data on why this road wasn't considered back to the Pulte discussion. Kate Aanenson: I think we addressed it and I'd be happy to go through that again but if you do want to have a public street, then I think as a planning professional, we're obligated to hold a public hearing. Councilman Labatt: I agree completely. I agree completely. Kate Aanenson: Right, and send it back to the Planning Commission. Hold a public hearing. But just briefly in a nutshell, the reason why we didn't support one is we took that land as an extraction. It's city property. It's over 17 percent, 14 percent slope. And you've had, again we didn't notify the neighbors. We felt they're kind of two different projects. Two different development proposals that it made sense, the uniqueness of those two projects to leave them separate. So the grading issue, I think we've been consistent on that. And it works for the type of development proposal. We did explore that and we did explore it with the applicant so, but it could go back. Mayor Furlong: Right. I think the value of considering a motion of reconsideration at this point with the applicant is agreed to a 60 day extension. They still within that 60 days have to meet at least 4/5 of the council's standard in terms of land use amendment, and the onus will be on them I think to come up with what will happen. I mean if motion to reconsider is taken, at this point I think the prudent thing to do would be to, for a motion to reconsider is made and passes. It's my understanding that this council would move back to right before the vote for the land use amendment at which point I think it would be appropriate, given that we have a 60 day extension to table that motion and table all the rest and then move on. And this council wouldn't deal with it any more tonight. But it would give the applicant time to address your issues, Councilman Labatt and your issues, Councilman Ayotte with regard to the moving target and the various 57 0 • City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 alternatives. So, I guess I would ask either Councilman Ayotte or Councilman Labatt if there's a motion to reconsider at this time? Councilman Ayotte: Motion to reconsider. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Who has to second it? Mayor Furlong: Anyone can second. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Okay. We are back discussing, do we have to pass a motion to reconsider? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. We can discuss whether or not we should pass the motion to reconsider, is that correct? Not the merits of the original motion for the land use itself. Roger Knutson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion to reconsider? Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to reconsider the motion regarding the land use amendment for Highlands at Bluff Creek. All voted in favor, except Councilman Labatt who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of4to1. Mayor Furlong: At this point we are back considering Councilman Peterson's motion for the land use amendment. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to table. Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to table Land Use Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Medium Density for Highlands at Bluff Creek. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Do we need to table all motions? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to table the remaining items on item 4. M 0 0 City Council Meeting — March 22, 2004 Councilman Ayotte: Second. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to table the Conceptual and Preliminary PUD#2003-3, Preliminary Plat with Variance #2003- 19, Conditional Use Permit #2003-10, and Site Plan #2003-11 for Highlands at Bluff Creek. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Okay, thank you. Thank you everyone. Appreciate you working through it with us. Councilman Peterson: Do you want us to save these? Councilman Labatt: No, we're getting new plans aren't we? Councilman Peterson: Some of them I would imagine so. Mayor Furlong: Alright. At this point, if we may, at this point, given the late hour, I would entertain a motion to table item 5. Councilman Peterson: Move to table. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table amendments to City Code, including Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes for Chapter 10, Licensing; Chapter 11, Miscellaneous Provisions & Offenses; and Chapter 13, Nuisances. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPOINTMENTS TO SENIOR COMMISSION, PARK AND RECREATION Mayor Furlong: I would like to do this tonight since this is our last meeting before April 1". Appointments of various commissioners. Residents to be members of our various commissions. So move onto item 6. On March 15'" the City Council conducted interviews with various residents on commission vacancies. We had vacancies on all four of our commissions, the Senior Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Environmental Commission and Planning Commission. Following the interviews the council discussed the various applicants and one thing that was very clear and was unanimous from a council standpoint was that we have a number of qualified candidates for all commissions. In fact we had more qualified candidates than we had openings. Unfortunately we're limited to the number of openings that we can appoint people to so not all the qualified candidates indeed will be appointed. What I would encourage those residents that at this point in time are not appointed to any commission, one, we certainly appreciate your interest in serving. And two, we would encourage you to stay available. 59 09 CITY OF CIIANNSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Boz 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227 1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building luspeclions Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227 1110 Park 6 Recreation Phone: 952.221.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.2271400 Fax: 952.2271404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www,achanhassen.mn.us February 12, 2008 Mr. Grant Komminga Vice President Allen -Lee Homes, Inc. 4809 W. 95'/2 Street Bloomington, MN 55437 Re: Landscaping Requirements at Highlands at Bluff Creek Dear Grant, Recently the city reduced your Letter of Credit covering landscaping requirements at Highlands at Bluff Creek. In the spring a final inspection of the landscaping will be made and, if all requirements are met, the remaining amount of the LOC will be released. Before the final inspection, all landscaping materials must be alive and in good health. Additionally, the two large maple trees preserved during development have died and been removed. To date, the City has not been notified of any replacement plantings. These are required to be done when trees scheduled for preservation subsequently die as a result of construction damage. City ordinance requires replacement plantings to be done at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. Realistically, this number of trees can't be accommodated on site. The city will require you to plant a minimum of 5 trees for each maple removed. The species and exact locations can be determined through further discussion, but the trees should be replaced in the general area of those removed. This requirement will need to be met by June 1, 2008. The city appreciates and anticipates your cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this issue. Sincerely, Jill Sinclair Environmental Resources Specialist The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A peat place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CgANBASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen. MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections cx: ;522271 1;., Engineering Phone, 952 227.1160 Fax. 952.227 1170 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ-. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Bob Generous, Senior Planner June 15, 2004 Highland of Bluff Creek Final Plat, Plowshares Development Planning Case #04-01 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The developer is requesting final plat approval to subdivide six acres into 16 lots and three outlots and final Planned Unit Development Ordinance approval. The city has granted site plan approval for the 16 townhouse units contingent on final plat approval. Pinang City Council has approved the sale of a portion of Outlot G, Arboretum Village, Phone: 952.2271140 to the developer. Outlot J, Arboretum Village, is owned by the Minnesota Fax: 952 227 1110 Department of Transportation (MnDOT). However, MnDOT currently is unable Park & Recreation to release the property to another owner and will need to be an exception to the Pnone:952.227.1120 plat. Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center BACKGROUND 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 On April 26, 2004, the Chanhassen City Council approved the following: Planning 8 Natural Resources . Land Use Amendment from Residential — Low Density to Residential — Y Phone. 952.227 1130 Medium Density. Fax 952.227 1110 Public warts • Conceptual and preliminary approval of the rezoning of the property from 1591 Park Road Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development — Phone: 952.227.1300 Residential, PUD -R. Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior center • Preliminary Plat approval of the proposed development for Highlands of Phone: 952.227.1125 Bluff Creek with a variance to permit a 20 -foot setback from the Bluff Fax: 952.227.1110 Creek Primary Zone. Web Site www.ci.chanhassennn.us . Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. • Site Plan approval for 16 townhouse units. The City of Chanhassen - A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gnat place to live, work, and play. Mr. Todd Gerhardt • • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14, 2004 Page 2 BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The northern portion of the site is enveloped by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Primary Zone extends to the edge of the canopy/tree line. The property contains a forested riparian corridor. Due to site constraints, a variance allowing a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary with no grading occurring within the first 10 feet of the setback is being approved with the development. In discussion with the developer, the developer has stated that he is dedicating Outlot A to the City as permanent open space. Outlot A contains the Bluff Creek Primary Zone on the property. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The development has prepared a landscape plan that complies with city ordinance. The developer has provided a double row of evergreens at the east end of the private street. Four of the evergreens are 12 —14 foot tall and four are 6 feet tall. These staggered tree heights will provide a more thorough screening than the use of all taller trees. The wooded area on the north of the property within the primary zone shall be preserved in its entirety. Additionally, a grouping of significant trees are being preserved adjacent to Highway 41. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the limits of tree removal. PARKS AND RECREATION The developer shall pay park dedication fees for 15 units at the time of final plat recording. One of the 16 units is exempt from these charges due to the existing single-family home on the property. The 2004 fees are $2,200.00 per unit. GRADING. DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL The plans propose to grade about 70% of the site for the new 16 -unit townhouse pads, a proposed private driveway ending with a partial hammer -head turnaround and a stormwater pond. The proposed grading will prepare the site for lookout and walkout lots. Drainage swales have been proposed along the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. The plan proposes a 5 -foot retaining wall along the south side of the proposed storm pond. A retaining wall of this size will require the wall to be designed by a professional structural engineer. The existing site drainage runs off site from the southwesterly quarter of the parcel to the east and north toward Bluff Creek. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the drainage from the street, the front yards, and the rear yards of the lots adjacent to the pond and route the stormwater to a proposed NURP pond in the southeasterly corner of the site. The applicant is proposing an outlet control structure to control the discharge of water from the proposed pond. The overflow water will be conveyed via storm sewer to an existing storm sewer, along the south side of West 78d' Street, ending at a regional storm pond at the northwest quadrant of Century Boulevard and Highway 5. The amount of area that will still drain off site to the north toward Bluff Creek has been reduced. Mr. Todd Gerhardt • • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14, 2004 Page 3 The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for staff review. Staff has reviewed the calculations and found that they comply with City requirements. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Staff recommends that Type 11 silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and Type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. Surface Water Manaeement Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on residential townhome development rates of $1,967/acre. Based on the proposed developed net area of approximately 3.27 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $6,432. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Medium density townhome developments have a connection charge of $3,824 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $12,504 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for water quality if NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from off-site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $16,437. Mr. Todd Gerhardt • • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14,2004 Page 4 UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Century Trail; also, water service is available from West 780' Street. The applicant is proposing to extend the sewer line along the private street to service the proposed lots from an existing stub on the southeast corner of the parcel. The watermain is proposed to be looped through the site from West 78th Street and connect with the existing water stub at the southeast comer of the property. A minimum 30 -foot wide public easement will be required over the public sewer and watermain. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. The assessments for the BC-7/BC-8 project were based on the existing zoning for the site which contained one residential unit. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (16) than what the property had been assessed for, the additional 15 units (16-1=15) will be charged the sanitary sewer and water assessment unit that was in place for the BC-7/BC-8 project. The sanitary sewer assessment unit for the BC-7/BC-8 project was $300 and the water assessment unit was $1,694 for a total per unit cost of $1,994. Based on these rates, the total amount due payable to the City for the additional 15 units will be $29,910 (15 @ $1,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. Hook-up charges are for core utility system infrastructure, i.e. wells, lift stations, water towers, etc. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District and MnDOT. STREETSISITE ACCESS The plan shows a full access off of West 78`s Street along the south side of the parcel. The applicant is proposing a 26 -foot wide private street with concrete curb and gutter and a partial hammer -head turnaround. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshall. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design per City code. From an engineering and safety standpoint, the steepness required for the private street to access off of Century Trail would make the access less safe than if it came off of West 78`s Street. This Mr. Todd Gerhardt • • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14, 2004 Page 5 is because the required grade for the private street to access off of Century Trail is nearly 14%. The elevation of the private street within the site is set by the elevation of the townhomes on the south side of the street. The basement elevation of these townhomes must be three feet above the high water level (HWL) of the adjacent pond. This is a Watershed District requirement and it applies whether the townhomes are walk -out units or not. The applicant's engineer has provided a road design that shows a required street grade of nearly 14% for the private street to tie into Century Trail. The maximum private street grade allowed by City Code is 10%. For comparison purposes, the maximum allowable public street grade is 7%. The private street grade that would be required to access off of Century Trail would be nearly double the maximum public street grade. This raises obvious concerns with mad icing and the ability of residential traffic to stop on a street this steep prior to the intersection of Century Trail. There are also non -engineering related concerns with moving the site access to Century Trail. Staff has received a letter from the resident who lives just north of the City owned parklopen space land which the private street would go through to connect with Century Trail. This resident is opposed to having the private street connect with Century Trail. Also, in order for the private street to come off of Century Trail, the applicant would need to purchase a piece of parklopen space land from the City. Staff has concerns with potentially selling off this property because it was originally dedicated as permanent open space to the City. Moving the roadway would bisect this open space and add traffic to an area that was meant to be permanent open space. The applicant has also expressed concern over the time it would take to negotiate a price for the land purchase. For the above reasons, staff does not feel that the access location to the site should be moved. Staff also took a second look at the proposed site access location off of West 78th Street. The proposed access is in the same location as the existing driveway access to the property. The existing access was installed by MnDOT as part of the Highway 5 project and is located just east of the raised concrete median at the intersection of Highway 41 and West 78`h Street. The access was designed to provide full access to the property from either direction. The worst potential traffic conflict at the proposed access to the site would be the eastbound traffic attempting to turn left into the site and having to cross the westbound traffic lane during p.m. peak periods. MnDOT took traffic counts for the Highway 41/West 78`h Street intersection the week of April 12, 2004. Staff enlisted the services of a professional traffic engineer who evaluated potential left turn traffic conflicts into the site. Based on 16 townhomes, a conservative (high) estimate of traffic making a left tum into the development during the p.m. peak hour is 11 vehicles. The traffic counts indicate that the westbound p.m. peak hour traffic flow, which would be the conflict for the entering vehicles, is 30 vehicles. These numbers do not indicate any potential for operational problems with regard to access to the site. There will be approximately one vehicle every six minutes entering the site that could be potentially opposed by one vehicle every two minutes driving west past the site. It should also be pointed out that MnDOT has reviewed the plans for this development. The MnDOT comments have not stipulated any type of restriction on the West 78th Street access to the site nor have they recommended the addition of a tum lane into the site. In summary, it does not appear that the existing traffic or the development -generated traffic will be great enough to require modifications to the proposed access location. Mr. Todd Gerhardt • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14, 2004 Page 6 RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION Staff is currently working with Westwood Community Church on concept plans for the extension of West 781° Street, west of Highway 41. Because of the existing alignment of the Highway 41/West 78th Street intersection on the east side of Highway 41 and the 9roperty line location of Westwood Community Church on the west side, the existing West 78 Street intersection will need to be realigned to the north. This will require an additional area of right- of-way in the southwest corner of the site to be dedicated to the City from the applicant on the final plat. This right-of-way dedication will not impact the proposed lots. The applicant has shown the additional right-of-way dedication on the final plat. LOT TABULATIONS Lot/Block Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.) Ll B1 3,960 46 86 L2 B1 3,119 36 86 L3 B1 3,925 47 86 IA B1 3,969 52 86 L5 B1 3,115 36 86 L6 BI 4,061 47 86 Ll B2 4,014 47 86 L2 B2 3,079 36 86 L3 B2 4,014 47 86 Ll B3 4,061 47 86 L2 B3 3,115 36 86 L3 B3 4,061 47 86 LI B4 4,373 47 93 L2 B4 3,354 36 93 L3 B4 3,354 36 93 L4 B4 4,286 47 93 Outlot A 79,724 NA NA Outlot B 90,224 NA NA Outlot C 16,228 TH 41 37,871 Total 1284,006 REVHsW CONDMONS OF APPROVAL 1. The plat shall show a property line creating Outlots A and B which common boundary shall follow the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary. * This condition has been met. Mr. Todd Gerhardt • • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14, 2004 Page 7 2. Final Plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to West 78'h Street. * This condition shall be modified as follows: Outlot J, Arboretum Village, shall be shown as an exception to the plat. 3. The applicant shall submit association covenants to the City for review prior to recording. The association shall be responsible for the maintenance of any common elements of the development. * This condition still applies. 4. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication on fifteen of the sixteen lots based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single-family home on the property. The park fee, using 2004 park fees, is $2,200 per unit, which shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. * This condition shall be modified as follows: The developer shall pay park dedication fees in the amount of $33,000.00 at the time of final plat recording. 5. One tree shall be added to the landscape plan in the northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 4. * This condition has been met. 6. Applicant shall be responsible for all development plantings located on public property. The applicant shall submit to the City a maintenance agreement signed by the homeowners association to assume responsibility of the plantings once the development is completed. Twelve to fourteen -foot evergreens shall be located at the end of the cul-de-sac and positioned so as to alleviate headlight glare into the neighboring home. * This condition still applies. 7. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any work commencing. * This condition shall be modified as follows: Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any work commencing. Tree protection fencing surrounding trees #7115 and 7119 shall be set at the maximum distance from the tree. Fencing shall be field located prior to construction. 8. The developer shall enter into a Development Contract/PUD agreement with the City. The Development Design Standards shall be incorporated in the development contract. * This condition still applies. Mr. Todd Gerhardt • • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14, 2004 Page 8 9. All structures shall maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. * This condition still applies. 10. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). Outlot A may be dedicated to the city to be preserved as open space. * This condition shall be modified as follows: Outlot A shall be dedicated to the city to be preserved as open space. 11. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. * This condition has been met. 12. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The applicant must submit storm sewer sizing calculations for staff review. * This condition shall be revised as follows: The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. 13. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and Type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. The silt fence shall be removed once the site has been revegetated. * This condition still applies. 14. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat. * This condition has been met. 15. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. * This condition still applies. Mr. Todd Gerhardt • • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14, 2004 Page 9 16. The total amount due payable to the City for the additional 15 units will be $44,910 (15 @ $2,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. * This condition shall be modified as follows: The total amount due payable to the City for the additional 15 units will be $29,910 (15 @ $1,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. 17. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. * This condition still applies. 18. The applicant must be aware that the public sewer and watermain require a preconstruction meeting before the building permit issuance. * This condition still applies. 19. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPGA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc. * This condition still applies. 20. Add the following City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2109, 2201, 3101, 3104, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300 and 5301. * This condition has been met. 21. Add a stop sign at the exit side of the access. * This condition has been met. 22. Add a street light at the access. Mr. Todd Gerhardt • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14, 2004 Page 10 * This condition has been met. 23. On the utility plan: a. Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. b. Remove/delete the last note. c. Call out water -main fittings. d. Show sanitary sewer pipe class & slope and watermain pipe class. e. Watermain shall be 8" PVC C-900 pipe. * This condition shall be revised as follows: On the utility plan, show all the existing and proposed utility easements. 24. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Last storm manhole discharging to the pond must be a 3 -foot sump. * This condition shall be revised as follows: On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. 25. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. * This condition shall still apply. 26. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshall. * This condition shall be modified as follows: Increase the width of the north leg of the hammerhead from 20 to 25 feet. 27. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design. * This condition still applies. 28. CBMH-6 shall have a two -foot sump since it is the last structure that is road accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond. * This condition has been met. 29. The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all times." The note regarding positive drainage shall be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. Mr. Todd Gerhardt • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14, 2004 Page 11 * This condition still applies. 30. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over the proposed storm water pond. * This condition has been met. 31. Riprap and geotextile fabric shall be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. * This condition still applies. 32. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light duty silt fence shall be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. * This condition shall be deleted. This condition duplicated condition number 13 33. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. * This condition shall be deleted. This condition duplicated condition number 13. 34. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slo Stabilized within Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 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. * This condition still applies. 35. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. * This condition still applies. 36. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $32,777. Mr. Todd Gerhardt • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14, 2004 Page 12 * This condition shall be modified as follows: The developer shall pay a total SWMP fee to the City at the time of final plat recording of $16,437.00. 37. 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. * This condition still applies. 38. Additional area of right-of-way in the southwest corner of the site shall be dedicated to the City for West 78`" Street on the final plat. This right-of-way dedication will not impact the proposed lots. The exact size of the required right-of-way will be determined at the time of final plat. * This condition has been met. 39. The walkout elevations of the units adjacent to the proposed pond shall be lowered to an elevation of 1003 and an elevation of 1008 on the east end of the private road." * This condition has been met. Based on the review of the final development plans, staff is recommending that the following condition be added: 1. The proposed 5 -foot retaining wall must be designed by a registered structural engineer. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the ordinance rezoning the property to Planned Unit Development — Residential (PUD -R) and grants final plat approval of Planning Case #04-10 creating 16 lots and three outlots and right-of-way for Highway 41 and West 78" Street subject to the following conditions: 1. Outlot J, Arboretum Village, shall be shown as an exception to the plat. 2. The applicant shall submit association covenants to the City for review prior to recording. The association shall be responsible for the maintenance of any common elements of the development. 3. The developer shall pay park dedication fees in the amount of $33,000.00 at the time of final plat recording. Mr. Todd Gerhardt • • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14, 2004 Page 13 4. Applicant shall be responsible for all development plantings located on public property. The applicant shall submit to the City a maintenance agreement signed by the homeowners association to assume responsibility of the plantings once the development is completed. Twelve to fourteen -foot evergreens shall be located at the end of the cul-de-sac and positioned so as to alleviate headlight glare into the neighboring home. 5. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any work commencing. Tree protection fencing surrounding trees #7115 and 7119 shall be set at the maximum distance from the tree. Fencing shall be field located prior to construction. 6. The developer shall enter into a Development Contract/PUD agreement with the City. The Development Design Standards shall be incorporated in the development contract. 7. All structures shall maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. 8. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the city to be preserved as open space. 9. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. 10. Staff recommends that Type H silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and Type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. The silt fence shall be removed once the site has been revegetated. 11. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 12. The total amount due payable to the City for the additional 15 units will be $29,910 (15 @ $1,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. 13. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. 14. The applicant must be aware that the public sewer and watermain require a preconstruction meeting before the building permit issuance. Mr. Todd Gerhardt • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14, 2004 Page 14 15. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc. 16. On the utility plan, show all the existing and proposed utility easements. 17. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. 18. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. 19. Increase the width of the north leg of the hammerhead from 20 to 25 feet. 20. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design. 21. The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all times." The note regarding positive drainage shall be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. 22. Riprap and geotextile fabric shall be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. 23. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: TyM of Slope Stabilized within Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 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. Mr. Todd Gerhardt • • Highlands of Bluff Creek June 14, 2004 Page 15 24. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and stmt sweeping as needed. 25. The developer shall pay a total SWMP fee to the City at the time of final plat recording of $16,437.00. 26. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 27. The proposed 5 -foot retaining wall must be designed by a registered structural engineer." ATTACHMENTS 1. Final Plat. 2. Ordinance Rezoning Property to Planned Unit Development — Residential. 3. Letter from Phyllis Hanson (Metropolitan Council) to Robert Generous dated May 13, 2004. giplan\2004 planning cases\04-10 - walnut grove 2nd addition\walnut grove 2nd fp.doc • • F 3� ~ S Q U SmYE m` ci Al. s=ss a$ cc IN I ta cla de �a $: i3e .F •i 4=3e �L `a• a`Y � t% ty"t ty^^° tYo J m y a S9�n%zyae�=d � sy i.L aYiSa Oe `` -.gym`• d a. °R "° y°' e e- aE$ Z W {° o E �=`o =�frye Se § •ia�SEE6E �E � as = W Z ie $•e •.F-a fii.= - d• E^Se3 I a8 i W a -x $ i ta'<`e-"='e ` =a Eod'a. a o•. to u'r _Q Ld£z�°SES _ OfL y ,�tt � d'2xs2 Y° fi•6. :sbm..s d_ �3s [_ 's °Ede os_EYba`SE Yy lS d •p i $ _ Ssmf S$$Sa �BY m4aF$.,�.se ��E �? ktq•Fd o t `S I �� I ' '� m •` I I I a- � g W \4Ea / [9'990 iK90.l95 - I , I S _ y 12-1 ilia rcJ -g IFe .S '. •_ r'E N n = I �' X � �-mrwaex aiY- � i13. I X � it �� ygI� ii g ild \ •�) i � \ ql Y ' 1!Y � Ya .;2V O I N^ S E - !.a aloes, •_� JFay �I ! I <I 'o [ i9 "�4:'•py O'II S:i I d!y 3h I ep aE E i? QV 4r.r }jjd R_f ay �' Fw a. a e i_ A a \ ..e A. d� 4-49 o• . �F -- — — — — — — — — — - — - — — — — — — — — — — — — a. a s • CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA [01.10)1H306 *3163 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning all property within the following plat from Agricultural Estates (A2) to Planned Unit Development — Residential (PUD -R): Highlands of Bluff Creek Section 2. The following development Design Standards shall apply to all development within the project: DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a townhouse development consisting of two and three -unit structures. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each building proposed for development shall comply with the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses Three and four -unit townhouse structures. (16 units total) Accessory Use (on Outlot B only) Gazebo Maintenance Shed Picnic Shelter Project Identification Sign Retaining Wall School Bus Shelter Sidewalks Street, Private C. Setbacks The following building setbacks shall apply 0 West 78`h Street 50 ft. TH 41 50 ft. Perimeter of townhouse lot (front, rear and end) 0 ft. Development Perimeter Property Line 30 ft. Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A) 20 ft., with the first 10 ft. as buffer d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height 1. The standard for hard surface coverage is 30% for the overall development. 2. The maximum building height shall be two stories/35 feet. e. Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Materials used shall be from the approved material pallet. 3. All exterior equipment shall be screened by walls or landscaping. E Site Landscaping and Screening 1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, shall be installed when the adjacent grading and construction is completed. 2. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. g. Signage 1. One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance on West 78`" Street. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. 2. Signage shall be comprised of individual dimensional letters and logos. h. Lighting A shoe box fixture with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development for area lighting. 2. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. 0 0 Section 3. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 14th day of June, 2004. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on Metropolitan CoAU Building communities that Mork May 13, 2004 Robert Generous Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan Amendment Highlands of Bluff Creek — 6 acres Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 16500-8 Metropolitan Council District 4 Dear Mr. Generous: The Metropolitan Council staff found the City of Chanhassen's comprehensive plan amendment (CPA) complete for review on May 13, 2004. The amendment proposes to re -guide 6 acres from low density residential to medium density residential. The CPA area is generally located along County Road 41, just north of Arboretum Boulevard. At its May 24, 2000 regular meeting, the governing body of the Council identified certain types of local comprehensive plan amendments that may be reviewed by Council staff without further formal review by the governing body of the Council. Council staff applied the plan review waiver criteria established by the Council's governing body and finds that the amendment is in conformance with metropolitan system plans, consistent with the Regional Blueprint, and has no impact on the plans of other units of local government. Therefore, the Council will waive further review and the City may place this amendment into effect. The amendment, explanatory materials supplied and the information submission form will be appended to the City's Plan in the Council's files. If you have any questions about this review, please contact Tom Caswell, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1319. Siely, Phyllis anson, Manager Planning and Technical Assistance cc: Julius Smith, Metropolitan Council District 4 Tom Caswell, Sector Representative Scott/Carver County Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator RECEIVED MAY 14 2004 CIN OF CHANHASSEN V:`,Rccie.:N:Commmlilics\Chalhassan?Leticrs\Chanhassen 214h CPA Hi,h a -,d n+' RU'l Creek 16500-x waircr.doc. w .metras c l.org Metro Info Line 602-1888 230 East Fifth Street • St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 (651) 602-1000 • Fax 602-1550 • TIY 291-0904 An Equal OpporGmity Employer 1 • • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 y \ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: 1"V'' I(J'L OWNER: S15_ ADDRESS: 1551 41 650 ADDRESS: za30 W• _+`31�' MAQ 5S5I-* TELEPHONE (Daytime) TELEPHONE: 4!�L 0-4 So9`1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment —Temporary Sales Permit Lp. ko XC Conditional Use Permit p Cc> +�� _ Vacation of ROW/Easements 4LS Interim Use Permit Variance 11>0 peter. Z-�c S141X_ Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit X Planned Unit Development' 4. -415z Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review X Notification Sign 511^ X Site Plan Review` 3 io d X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" 50 Be�J ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision' R is TOTAL FEE $ 1.41, C> 24957 Q� =� A t, -L15 A list of all property owners w_ithm,5�0(Q (feet of the boundpries of the prouprty must be included with the application. >h � V � �TA1`v- �T Ye CVIS �t %�S �11(1(� ACP Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. l 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DES TOTAL ACREAGE CfJ•�� WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST YES) NO e This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners 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. will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120. days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. 10J311o3 Signature of cpplicant Date l d //0: Signatug 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. CITY (5,F CHANHASSEN • • 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT INC Date: 11/03/2003 Time: 1:43pm Receipt Number: EE / 4185 Clerk: BETTY MCALLISTER DEV APP FEES ITEM REFERENCE ------------------------------------------- AMOUNT DEVAP USE & VARIANCE 2,445.00 PLAT RECORDING 50.00 Total: --------------- 2,495.00 Check 2051 2,495.00 Change: --------------- 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! RECEIPT G• OF 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE • PAX 147 CHANHASSENCHANHASSEN, MN 55317 N0.77217 ((��;aaP��H�ONE: (952) 937-1900 RECEIVED OO" P&.k)S L> i✓ i DATE DESCRIPTION PERMILIC. AMOUNT FUND SOURCE Dal PROD. u P as, 6' 14 TOTALAMOUNT CHECK I] CASH ❑ �, J DEPUTY EASURER Westwood Professional Services, Inc. • 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 TRANSMITTAL 952-937-5150 Toll Free: 1-888-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 Date. May 21, 2004 To: Robert Generous City of Chanhassen CITY OF CENHASSEN RED 690 Coulter Drive, P.O.Box 147 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 MAY 2 1 2004 From: Curtis Neft CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Regarding: Highlands of Bluff Creek Proj. No.: 2003 -2566 -CO Items: No Description 1 Final Plat Application Package 1 Check for Application Fee Purpose: Other (see remarks) Remarks: If you have any questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call me at 952- Thank you Delivery: Hand Deliver Copy to: Todd Simning (Plowshares Development, LLC. Designing the future today... M I N N E A P O L I S S T. C L O U D co n 3 SHOIA83S 'AOHJ QO0KISHd1 ZZBS L£6 ZS6 )&A SY-ZI 60/OZ/SO Highlands At Bluff Creek 20032566 May 19, 2004 Pina1 Plat Areas --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parcel name: BILI Perimeter: 266.7500 Area: 4,061.26 sf 0.093 ac CITY OF CHANHASSEN --------------------------------------------------------------------- RECEIVED Parcel name: B1L2 MAY 2 1 2004 Perimeter: 244.8333 Area: 3,115.19 sf 0.072 ac CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parcel name: B1L3 Perimeter: 257.3829 Area: 3,925.24 sf 0.090 ac --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parcel name: B1L4 Perimeter: 260.4386 Area: 3,968.71 sf 0.091 ac --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parcel name: B1L5 Perimeter: 244.8333 Area: 3,115.19 sf 0.072 ac --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parcel name: B1L6 Perimeter: 266.7500 Area: 4,061.26 sf 0.093 ac Parcel name: B2L1 Perimeter: 264.7500 Area: 4,014.22 sf 0.092 ac Parcel name: B21,2 Perimeter: 242.8333 Area: 3.079.11 sf 0.071 ac --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parcel name: B2L3 ________________________ Perimeter: 264.7500 Area: 4,014.22 sf 0.092 ac --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parcel name: B3L1 ________________________ Perimeter: 266.7499 Area: 4,061.26 sf 0.093 ac --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parcel name: B3L2 ________________________ Perimeter: 244.8333 Area: 3,115.19 sf 0.072 ac --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parcel name: B3L3 ________________________ Perimeter: 266.7499 Area: 4,061.26 sf 0.093 ac --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parcel name: B4L1 ________________________ Perimeter: 279.9886 Area: 4,372.65 sf 0.100 ac --------------------------------------------------- Parcel name: B41,2 ________________________ Perimeter: 258.0719 Area: 3,354.04 sf 0.077 ac Parcel name: B4L3 Perimeter: 258.0719 Area: 3,354.04 sf 0.077 ac --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parcel name: B4L4 2 Perimeter: 271.9535 Area: 4,285.83 sf 0.098 ac Parcel name: STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 41 Perimeter: 1286.7392 Area: 37,870.90 sf 0.869 ac Parcel name: OUTLOT A Perimeter: 1381.5642 Area: 79,724.38 sf 1.830 ac Parcel name: OUTLOT B Area: 90,224.46 sf 2.071 ac Parcel name: OUTLOT C Perimeter: 1059.7625 Area: 16,227.94 sf 0.373 ac Parcel name: TOTAL BOUNDARY Perimeter: 2107.5054 Area: 284.006.34 sf 6.520 ac 3 9--- 5/20/04 _12:45 FAX 952 937 5822 WESTWOOD PROF. SERVICES Westwood Professional Services, Inc. FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL Da:eMay 20, 2004 To: Robert Generous City of Chanhassen (952)937-5739 From: Curtis Neft Regarding: Highlands of Bluff Creek Project No.: 20032566 -CO Number of pages including this cover letter 2 lao0i N 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-937-5150 Toll Free: 1-888-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 Please call 952-937-5150 if you do not receive all pages or experience difficulty receiving this transmission. Purpose: Other (see remarks) Remarks: Bob. _Todd Simning with Plowshares Development has had conversations with Justin Miller at MnDOT and it may be that the proDerty shown on the attached sketch will not be acquired. The building closest to West 78 St. is setback 50' from the ROW and more than 30' from the property line of the subject MnDOT property. Do you foresee any issues if the MnDOT piece is not acquired? Please give me a call to discuss at 952-906-7405 Thank you cc Todd Simninq Designing the future today- --M I N N E A P O L I S S T. C L O U D THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATON INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THE PERSONS OR ENTRIES NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT SUCH PERSONS OR ENTRIES, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISTRIBUTION, DISSEMINATION OR REPROWCTION OF THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR PLEASE IMMEDIATELY CALL US COLLECT Westwood Professional Services, Inc. PLANNING. ENGINEERING •SURVEYING TRANSMITTAL Date: April 2, 2004 To: Bob Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 From: Ed Hasek CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 2 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Regarding: Plowshares - HIGHLANDS OF BLUFF CREEK Proj. No.: 20032566 Items: No Description 7 sets of revised plans dated 4/2/04 1 reduced set of same 7 revised /colored tree preservation Purpose: As you requested Remarks: 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phare: 952-937-5750 Fac 952-937-5622 Toll free. 1-938-937-5150 E-mail: wmQvvestwoodpscpm TWIN CITIESWMO ST. CLOUD BRAINERD this condition to the engineer several weeks ago which showed a grade in excess of 13% ( the K value still was not high enough). If additional information is still required for your review. Please contact me immediately so we can provide it to you and keep the schedule intact. We are under the understanding that we will not be returning to the Planning Commission, but will be going back to Council with revised plans for the same approval / application as before. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Ed Hasek — 937-5150 Delivery: Hand Deliver Copy to: file; ts; dj Designing the Future Today -since 1972 2003 Weetwoo6 T Call 4 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-654-0002 Tree Inventory Mn. Toll Free 1-600-252-1166 ' food P3ofassimnl 5a3vicase Mc. ..� )599. Drive ".n" Area I aw I [sen I+raina M1 «e INnne: 9519313130 iYa 93LM�1@ m 11ML..—MM©� Ytr �M Saaa�w iie3 � tam m T Call 4 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-654-0002 Tree Inventory Mn. Toll Free 1-600-252-1166 Canopy Co. 775 ac (123% of Six) Canopy Sea rn eL 3b9 ac CM1% of Canopy Caved NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION IWwwww" I�ol CleawkPlowshares Development, LLC Mal aa. s V ori WW 1551 W. Drive WM5 �anbaw®. 3IIJ 5317 Highlands of Bluff Creek CITY ,)F CHANHASSEN RECEIVED P -�R 0 2 2004 :HANHASSEN PLANNING X 0 50' 100' 150 u -z :oanecamam me 1 oex 10/31/03 5hae 1 of 1 BCOD/Tree Preservation Analysis mix;= m 11ML..—MM©� m m 11111111115ZON© M�C97 �mm� 4J mm al OS)� - is Me, omo0� moo®� mmo©� m000t. —.- m000� E Ile mom- --©� = O C �o Canopy Co. 775 ac (123% of Six) Canopy Sea rn eL 3b9 ac CM1% of Canopy Caved NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION IWwwww" I�ol CleawkPlowshares Development, LLC Mal aa. s V ori WW 1551 W. Drive WM5 �anbaw®. 3IIJ 5317 Highlands of Bluff Creek CITY ,)F CHANHASSEN RECEIVED P -�R 0 2 2004 :HANHASSEN PLANNING X 0 50' 100' 150 u -z :oanecamam me 1 oex 10/31/03 5hae 1 of 1 BCOD/Tree Preservation Analysis PRELIMINARY STORM WATER RUNOFF CALCULATIONS Highlands of Bluff for Creek Chanhassen, MN Plowshares Development, LLC 1851 Lake Drive West Chanhassen, MN 55317 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone (952) 937-5150, Fax (952) 937-5822 April 2, 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Project # 20032566 RECEIVED APR 0 2 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SUMMARY The attached storm water runoff and ponding calculations are based on Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) and The Soil Conservation Service Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method incorporated into the software program HydroCAD ver 6.10. One pond was incorporated into the project for both rate control and quality control. The goal for rate control on this project was not to exceed existing rates discharged to the MnDOT ROW for the 10 and 100 -year events and to limit the total peak run-off rates for the site to the existing rates. The pond system was designed to provide dead storage volume from a 2.5 -inch rainfall event and maintain an average depth of 4.0'. Due to site restrictions and the pond shape the pond volume provided below the outlet elevation was increased in order to meet the average depth requirement for the required NURP volume. Refer to the attached calculations. SITE CONDITIONS The site consists of Type "B" soils, and curve numbers were obtained from "Technical Release 55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds." A curve number of 55 was used for the existing condition of woods, 61 for grass areas, and 98 for impervious surfaces. For the proposed conditions a curve number of 61 was used for open spaces and 85 for residential town homes. Refer to attachments for existing and proposed drainage areas. ROUTING Under existing conditions, 2.70 acres drains to the north side of the property. Another 2.74 acres drains to the south side of the site and the remaining 0.76 acres drains to the west. Under post -development conditions, 2.65 acres of development is conveyed to a pond prior to discharging to the south, 2.43 acres drains to the north, 0.77 acres drains to the west, and 0.33 acres drains directly to the south. RATE CONTROL An evaluation was made for both the pre -development and post -development peak runoff rates for the entire site. By using a 5" orifice and a 12" outlet pipe for Pond A the peak runoff rates were within rate control requirements. The following is a table summarizing pre -development and post -development peak runoff rates for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year storms: PEAK RUNOFF RATES Pre -Development Post-Develnnment Drainage 2 yr cfs 10 yr cfs 100 yrff2yr cfs 10 yr cfs 100 yr cfsNorth 0.40 2.86 7.50 2.57 6.75 South West 78 St. 0.75 3.12 7.17 1.53 2.61 West H .41 0.42 1.49 3.24 1.22 2.88 Totals 1.57 7.47 17.91 5.32 12.24 * WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC_ (952) 937-5150 qn a Er, ENV Following is a table summarizing the rate control pond system: Pond Drainage NWL Dead 100 -yr Live 100 -yr 100 -yr Overflow Area (feet) Storage HWL Storage Inflow Discharge Elevation (arrel fArrP-fPPfl (fPPfl lArrP-fPPtl trfcl rrfcl rfPPfl Pond A L 2.65 1 998.0 0.95 999.5 0.58 17.80 0.75 1002.0 POND VOLUME AND MEAN DEPTH CALCULATIONS As previously stated the pond has been increased in volume capacity to meet the average depth requirement of 4.0'. The following is an illustration of the average depth calculation: The required NURP volume is 0.40 acre -ft. The provided volume at the normal -water -level is 0.95 acre -ft. The required NURP volume is provided at the 996 contour with a pond volume of 0.47 acre -ft. The average depth of this volume at and below the 996 contour is 4.05' as calculated below: Contour Interval Volume (ac -ft) Average depth (ft) Weighted Volume 990-992 0.051855 7.0 0.362985 992-994 0.145867 5.0 0.729335 994-996 0.275734 3.0 0.827202 Total 0.473457 1.919522 Average Depth = 1.919522/0.473457 = 4.05' WATER QUALITY The PONDNET model was used to determine the phosphorus removal efficiency of the proposed pond. The removal efficiency of the pond is 65% I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Lgcensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dwif ht K (defle, P.E. Reg. No. 19153 Lf/,/O(/ Date WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. (952) 937-5150 SUMMARY HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULICS * WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. (952) 937-5150 02003 west+om Pre3eszlonaiCiis Fr Sauces. m.- xA L FT / � � \,_�/ F a ..._0.c ^ ,i, \ / `. \ \ •\-�- IF �] ' l i •\ A-274 AC S-0.02 FT/FT I \j L-370 FT ✓� \ R -ow PATH Ile, e C0Y e8 N0ur9 pelare 699n4 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Fen Gty�eo 651-45e-0002 Mn- Tat free 1-600-252-1166 A 'Y IL.Lllal_ at ' _ 1 i o' so' oa V-2.11566 -11 o..� OU06/64 s6 -c t OF 2 Highlands of I tLrw wed !r= TQM - WIIVes� Professional Services, Irtc. � I ft"eaw f , Bluff Creek Exisftg 7599 am�Se Plowshares Development, LLC E,M,,,;,;e MN 553,, �, �, r Drainage Area Map cnmc 951/937 siso Fax, 95M37.51 0 -*w C et 1651 Idke Drive wetl o.. 641Ot/01urea 1� °-'"••"'- oi.0n,.«a W,1 553v Ch nnnxen, euMevta vr.t..,;.na s�x i• p . s SAL Cpl " H. . Mtw. Qpgny. C4"ER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651 -454-(=2 Mn. TNI Free 1 -BW -252-1166 X FT -� 50 100 150 •_1 1W,15660MOi0F at 01/06/04 seek 2 oB 2 Highlands of `�.Westwood Professional Services, inc. I '��• (. :,<nwia.l aaie — . - I f� Pro soled 1599 Ar g9 Dive Plowshares Development, LLC Bluff Creek p Eden V',i MN S53µ P Drainage Area Map Vhp�e: 95b 31 5150F" 95L93) -S, � C k . 1651 Gk¢ Drive Wtlf 't— sk/Bt/Be Eta 1\ VLfl �""�"` (]Huth m. MN 55332 Chenhaaeen, Minne U Subcat Reach Aon QUk 20032566 -EXISTING -2 -YR -04-04-02 Type l/ 24 -hr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Page 1 HydroCAD® 6.10 s/n 002351 © 1986-2002 Applied Microcomputer Systems 4/1/2004 Subcatchment 1S: Existing Drainage to North Runoff = 0.40 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.039 af, Depth= 0.17" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description 1.800 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.810 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.090 98 Impervious Surface 2.700 58 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 8.1 275 0.0650 0.6 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 2S: Existing Drainage to South (West 78th St.) Runoff = 0.75 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.068 af, Depth= 0.30" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Descriotion 0.800 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 1.640 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.300 98 Impervious Surface 2.740 63 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity _min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) 16.3 370 0.0200 0.4 Description Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 3S: Existing Drainage to West (Hwy. 41) Runoff = 0.42 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af, Depth= 0.30" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Descriotion 0.130 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.060 98 Impervious Surface 0.570 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.760 63 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 2.5 98 0.1000 0.6 Lag/CN Method, 20032566 -EXISTING -10 -YR -04-04-02 Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. HydroCAD® 6.10 s/n 002351 © 1986-2002 Applied Microc Type 11 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Page 1 Subcatchment 1S: Existing Drainage to North Runoff = 2.86 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.149 af, Depth= 0.66" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 1.800 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.810 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.090 98 Impervious Surface 2.700 58 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 8.1 275 0.0650 0.6 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 2S: Existing Drainage to South (West 78th St.) Runoff = 3.12 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.208 af, Depth= 0.91" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 0.800 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 1.640 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.300 98 Impervious Surface 2.740 63 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) 16.3 370 0.0200 0.4 Description Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 3S: Existing Drainage to West (Hwy. 41) Runoff = 1.49 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.058 af, Depth= 0.92" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 0.130 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.060 98 Impervious Surface 0.570 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.760 63 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 2.5 98 0.1000 0.6 Lag/CN Method, 20032566 -EXISTING -100 -YR -04-04-02 Type 11 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Page 1 HydroCADO 6.10 s/n 002351 © 1986-2002 Applied Microcomputer Systems 4/1/2004 Subcatchment 1S: Existing Drainage to North Runoff = 7.50 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.354 af, Depth= 1.58" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 1.800 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.810 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.090 98 Impervious Surface 2.700 58 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description min (feet) (ft/ft) (f /sec) (cfs) 8.1 275 0.0650 0.6 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 2S: Existing Drainage to South (West 78th St.) Runoff = 7.17 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.449 af, Depth= 1.97' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.800 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 1.640 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.300 98 Impervious Surface 2.740 63 Weighted Average Tc Length Description 16.3 370 0.0200 0.4 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 3S: Existing Drainage to West (Hwy. 41) Runoff = 3.24 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.125 af, Depth= 1.98" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.130 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.060 98 Impervious Surface 0.570 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.760 63 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 2.5 98 0.1000 0.6 Lag/CN Method, (3S) 2S (4S 1P Subcat Reach Aon Llnk 20032566 -PROPOSED -2 -YEAR -04-04-02 Type 1124 -hr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Page 1 HydroCAD® 6.10 s/n 002351 © 1986-2002 Applied Microcomputer Systems 4/1/2004 Subcatchment 1S: Proposed Drainage to North Runoff = 0.36 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.035 af, Depth= 0.17' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description 1.800 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.100 98 Impervious Surface 0.530 61 >75% Grass cover. Good. HSG B 2.430 58 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 400 8.1 275 0.0650 0.6 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 2S: Proposed Drainage to Pond Runoff = 6.12 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.289 af, Depth= 1.31" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description 2.650 85 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG B Tc Length Slope Velocity iin) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) 8.2 400 0.0250 0.8 Description Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 3S: Proposed Drainage to West (Hwy. 41) Runoff = 0.26 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.014 af, Depth= 0.22" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description 0.130 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.640 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.770 60 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 2.7 98 0.1000 0.6 Lag/CN Method, 20032566 -PROPOSED -2 -YEAR -04-04-02 Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. HydroCAD® 6.10 s/n 002351 © 1986-2002 Applied Microc Type // 24 -hr Rainfall=2.80" Page 2 Subcatchment 4S: Proposed Drainage to South (West 78th St.) Runoff = 0.40 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.016 af, Depth= 0.58" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description 0.090 98 Impervious Surface 0.240 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.330 71 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope iin) (feet) Mitt) 2.6 97 0.0620 Capacity Description 0.6 Lag/CN Method, Pond 1 P: Pond A Inflow Area = 2.650 ac, Inflow Depth= 1.31" Inflow = 6.12 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.289 of Outflow = 0.32 cfs @ 13.26 hrs, Volume= 0.180 at, Atten= 95%, Lag= 76.1 min Primary = 0.32 cfs @ 13.26 hrs, Volume= 0.180 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 998.45' Surf.Area= 15,840 sf Storage= 7,511 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 223.5 min calculated for 0.180 of (62% of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 998.00 15,237 0 0 1,000.00 17,898 33,135 33,135 1,002.00 20,760 38,658 71,793 Primary OutFlow Max=0.32 cfs @ 13.26 hrs HW=998.45' (Free Discharge) t1=Orifice/Grate (Controls 0.32 cfs) # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 998.00' 5.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C=0.600 20032566 -PROPOSED -10 -YEAR -04-04-02 Type 11 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Page 1 HydroCADOO 6.10 s/n 002351 © 1986-2002 Applied Microcomputer Systems 4/1/2004 Subcatchment 1S: Proposed Drainage to North Runoff = 2.57 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.134 af, Depth= 0.66" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type If 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 1.800 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.100 98 Impervious Surface 0.530 61 >75% Grass cover. Good. HSG B 2.430 58 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope iin) (feet) (ft/ft) 8.1 275 0.0650 Velocity Capacity Description 0.6 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 2S: Proposed Drainage to Pond Runoff = 11.17 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.541 af, Depth= 2.45' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 2.650 85 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG B Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.2 400 0.0250 0.8 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 3S: Proposed Drainage to West (Hwy. 41) Runoff = 1.22 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.049 af, Depth= 0.76" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 0.130 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.640 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.770 60 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 2.7 98 0.1000 0.6 Lag/CN Method, 20032566 -PROPOSED -10 -YEAR -04-04-02 Type 1124 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Page 2 HydroCAD® 6.10 s/n 002351 © 1986-2002 Applied Microcomputer Systems 4/1/2004 Subcatchment 4S: Proposed Drainage to South (West 78th St.) Runoff = 0.99 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.038 af, Depth= 1.39" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 0.090 98 Impervious Surface 0.240 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.330 71 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity iin) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) 2.6 97 0.0620 0.6 Description Lag/CN Method, Pond 1 P: Pond A Inflow Area = 2.650 ac, Inflow Depth = 2.45" Inflow = 11.17 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.541 of Outflow = 0.54 cfs @ 13.29 hrs, Volume= 0.330 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 78.0 min Primary = 0.54 cfs @ 13.29 hrs, Volume= 0.330 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 998.89' Surf.Area= 16,425 sf Storage= 14,793 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 239.4 min calculated for 0.330 of (61% of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 998.00 15,237 0 0 1,000.00 17,898 33,135 33,135 1,002.00 20,760 38,658 71,793 Primary OutFlow Max=0.54 cfs @ 13.29 hrs HW=998.89' (Free Discharge) t1=Orifice/Grate (Controls 0.54 cfs) # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 998.00' 5.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 20032566 -PROPOSED -100 -YEAR -04-04-02 Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. HydroCADO 6.10 s/n 002351 @ 1986-2002 Applied Microc Type 1124 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Page 1 Subcatchment 1S: Proposed Drainage to North Runoff = 6.75 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.319 af, Depth= 1.58" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 1.800 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.100 98 Impervious Surface 0.530 61 >75% Grass cover. Good. HSG B 2.430 58 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope iin) (feet) (fuft) 8.1 275 0.0650 Velocity Capacity Description 0.6 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 2S: Proposed Drainage to Pond Runoff = 17.80 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.889 af, Depth= 4.02" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 2.650 85 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG B Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.2 400 0.0250 0.8 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 3S: Proposed Drainage to West (Hwy. 41) Runoff = 2.88 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.111 af, Depth= 1.73" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.130 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.640 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.770 60 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 2.7 98 0.1000 0.6 Lag/CN Method, 20032566 -PROPOSED -100 -YEAR -04-04-02 Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. HvdroCAD® 6.10 s/n 002351 0 1986-2002 ADDlled Micron Type // 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Page 2 Subcatchment 4S: Proposed Drainage to South (West 78th St.) Runoff = 1.86 cis @ 11.93 hrs, Volume= 0.073 af, Depth= 2.67" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.090 98 Impervious Surface 0.240 61 >75% Grass cover. Good. HSG B 0.330 71 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.6 97 0.0620 0.6 Lag/CN Method, Pond 1 P: Pond A Inflow Area = 2.650 ac, Inflow Depth = 4.02" Inflow = 17.80 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.889 of Outflow = 0.75 cfs @ 13.48 hrs, Volume= 0.488 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 89.2 min Primary = 0.75 cfs @ 13.48 hrs, Volume= 0.488 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 999.52' Surf.Area= 17,261 sf Storage= 25,204 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 250.8 min calculated for 0.488 of (55% of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 998.00 15,237 0 0 1,000.00 17,898 33,135 33,135 1,002.00 20,760 38,658 71,793 Primary OutFlow Max=0.75 cfs @ 13.48 hrs HW=999.52' (Free Discharge) L1=Orifice/Grate (Controls 0.75 cfs) # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 998.00' 5.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C=0.600 PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT NO.: DESIGNED BY: Highlands of Bluff Creek 2003-2566 Curtis Neft DESIGNED DATE: April 2, 2004 Sediment Pond Station Contour Distance Feet Sq. Ft. Area Ac. Area Ac -ft Storage Cumm. Stora e 990 433.00 0.00994 2 0.051855 0.051855 992 2,020.00 0.04637 2 0.145867 0.197723 994 4,497.00 0.10324 2 0.275734 0.473457 996 7,653.00 0.17569 1 0.194253 0.667710 997 9,297.00 0.21343 1 0.278819 0.946529 998 15,237.00 0.34979 2 0.759856 1.706385 1000 17,898.00 0.41088 2 0.886654 2.593039 1002 20,760.00 0.47658 TOTAL 2.59304 PONDSIZ - Version 2.1 - W. Walker INPUT VARIABLE UNITS VALUES NOTES case title ------------> Pond A watershed area acres 2.65 pervious curve number - 61 from SCS tables, for AMC=2 impervious fraction 0.65 design storm inches 2.5 VLAWMO criterion = 2.5 inches antecedent moisture cond. 2 (1,2,or 3), VLAWMO criterion = 2 pond maximum depth feet 8 <= 10 ft bench width be feet 10 >= loft bench slope be ft!ft 10 >= 10 ft horiz / It vertical side slope ab ft/ft 3 >= 3 ft horiz / ft vertical pond shape factor 2 1 --triangle, 2=rectangle, 3=ellipse length/width ratio 3.4 >= 3 top length c feet 265.00 adjust to achieve target volume OUTPUT VARIABLE UNITS VALUE target volume acre -ft 0.37 = design storm runoff volume design volume acre -ft 1.19 should be >= target volume design mean depth feet 2.51 VLAWMO criterion >= 4 feet design surface area acres 0.47 pond / watershed area = 17.9% design storm runoff inches 1.69 runoff coefficient = 67.7% maximum retention inches 6.39 for pervious portion of watershed CONTOUR DIMENSIONS Case = Pond A Design Geometry = RECTANGLE TOP BENCH BOTTOM contour C B A TOTAL elevation feet 0.0 -1.0 -8.0 depth feet 0.0 1.0 8.0 8.0 maximum length feet 265.0 197.0 54.2 265.0 maximum width feet 77.9 57.9 15.9 77.9 surface area feetA2 20654 11414 864 20654 surface area acres 0.47 0.26 0.02 0.47 increm. volume feetA3 15808 35977 51785 increm. volume ydA3 585 1332 1918 increm. volume ac -ft 0.36 0.83 1.19 centroid offset It 0.0 24.0 74.4 outflow slope leng. ft 10.0 21.0 inflow slope length ft 58.0 121.8 outflow slope be ft-h/ft-v 10.0 3.0 inflow slope ab ft-h/ft-v 58.0 17.4 PONDNET 2.1 W. Walker March 1989 INPUT VARIABLES.... case labels watershed area runoff coefficient pond surface area pond mean depth upstream pond p load upstream pond outflow OUTPUT VARIABLES FLOW AND PHOSPHORUS ROUTING IN POND NETWORKS Press ALT -G for Graphs TITLE--> UNITS acres acres feet lbs/yr ac-fUyr Pond A 2.65 0.65 0.35 2.7 0 0 outflow p load lbs/yr 3.511278 outflow volume ac-ft/yr 5.741667 outflow p conc ppb 224.9975 pond removal % 65.38683 total removal % 65.385 ASSUMED EXPORT FACTORS period length yrs 0.5 period precipitation inches 20 runoff total p ppb 650 runoff ortho p/total p ac-ft/yr 0.3 relative decay rate lbs/yr 1 unit runoff in/yr 26 unit export lbs/ac-y 3.828053 POND WATER BUDGETS runoff ac-ft/yr 5.741667 upstream pond ac-ft/yr 0 total inflow ac-fUyr 5.741667 outflow ac-ft/yr 5.741667 POND PHOSPHORUS BUDGETS runoff lbs/yr 10.14434 upstream pond lbs/yr 0 total inflow lbs/yr 10.14434 net sedimentation lbs/yr 6.633062 outflow lbs/yr 3.511278 HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS pond volume acre -ft 0.945 vlawmo pond volume acre -ft 0.358854 relative volume inches 6.583454 residence time years 0.164586 residence time days 60.07402 overflow rate ft/yr 16.40476 inflow phos conc ppb 650.0344 outflow phos conc ppb 224.9975 p reaction rate 5.457673 1-rp 0.346132 04-o q MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager lp MOfp FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner CgANgASSEN DATE: March 22, 2004 D*1 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJ: Highlands on Bluff Creek Administration Phone: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fax: 952.2227.17,11100 Building Inspection The Planning Commission recommended denial of the land use amendment, PFax:9522.27.11900 rezoning and consequently denial of the subdivision with the setback variance to Fax: 952.227.1190 the Bluff Creek primary zone and conditional use permit due to inconsistency Engineering with the zoning. The primary issues the Planning Commission had were Phone: 952.227.1100 resolving the primary zone location, tree removal and access. Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Staff has consistently stated that the primary zone boundary follows the tree line Phone: 952.227.1140 north of the house and structures on the north side of the property. What the Fax: 952.227.1110 applicant is proposing is that they be permitted to remove some of these trees and Park & Recreation create a new tree line that would become, if approved, the revised primary zone Phone: 952.227.1120 boundary. Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation center 2310 Coulter Boulevard The forested areas within this property are an example of upland hardwood Phone:95222z14gg forests, specifically, maple basswood forest, otherwise known as "Big Woods". Fax: 952.227.1404 Staff has prepared an analysis of the tree removal due to structure placement vs. Planning & pond placement. Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Tree Removal for retention pond in primary scenario: Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works Creating a storm pond within the primary zone would remove a minimum of 1591 Park Road 9,300 square feet of canopy. Significant trees would also be removed. They Phone: 952.227.1300 include a 10" boxelder and a 20" boxelder. Trees that are at the edge of the Fax 952.227 1310 grading limits, and therefore questionable as to their survivability, include 12" Senior center boxelder, 27" boxelder, 32" boxelder, 13" boxelder, 24" boxelder, and 15" sugar Phone: 952.227.1125 maple. This design creates fragmentation in an otherwise connected piece of Fax: 952.227.1110 woods, possibly having a negative effect on the quality of the woods. Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Tree removal for townhomes in primary zone: Building townhomes in the primary zone would remove a minimum of 3,250 square feet of canopy. According to the plans, no significant trees in the primary zone would be removed. However, there are trees located at the edge of the grading limits, and therefore questionable as to their survivability. These include a 22" sugar maple, 26" sugar maple, and a 21" sugar maple. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3 are the buildings having the most affect on tree removal within the primary zone. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Mr. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager March 22, 2004 Highlands of Bluff Creek Page 2 Tree quality in relation to removal standards: Chanhassen city ordinance does not discriminate against certain tree species. The ordinance does not have a ranking of tree species in regards to preservation because the aim is to recognize that all species have value. The intent of the ordinance is to preserve tree cover in the city, not to insure that only certain species of trees are preserved. In the case of the retention pond for this development, the trees identified for removal are boxelder and the question arose about whether or not these trees were of consequence. From the perspective of city ordinance, yes, they are. They are providing all the benefits of other species, namely, oxygen, shade, runoff reduction, CO (carbon monoxide) reduction and habitat. The DNR has documented that at least 5 different species of wildlife use boxelders for shelter or food. Staff agrees with the ordinance that the important question isn't what trees are removed, but rather how many. At the March 2, 2004, Planning Commission (PC) meeting, concerns were raised about the location of the proposed access to the site off of West 78th Street. The PC asked staff to look at the possibility of moving the proposed private street access so that it would come from the east off of Century Trail. Staff has since met with the applicant's engineer and reviewed the location of the proposed site access. In order for the private street to come off of Century Trail, the applicant would need to purchase a piece of park/open space land from the City. The City currently owns the open space property (Outlot G, Arboretum Village plat) immediately to the east of the McAllister parcel. Staff has concerns with potentially selling off this property because it was originally dedicated as permanent open space to the City. Moving the roadway would bisect this open space and add traffic to an area that was meant to be permanent open space. The applicant has also expressed concern over the time it would take to negotiate a price for the land purchase. From an engineering standpoint, it doesn't appear that the private street can access off of Century Trail. The elevation of the private street within the site is set by the elevation of the townhomes on the south side of the street. These townhomes must be three feet above the high water level (HWL) of the adjacent pond. The applicant's engineer has provided a road design that shows a required street grade of nearly 14% for the private street to tie into Century Trail. The maximum private street grade allowed by City Code is 10%. For the above reasons, staff does not feel that the access location to the site should be moved. Staff has met with the applicant to discuss the primary zone, potential access via Century Trail and tree removal. Based on this meeting, the applicant has prepared one last development option. This option combines the twin units on the south side of the access street in to a four -unit structure. By doing this, they are able to realign the street farther to the east. These revisions result in additional tree preservation of the significant maples along Highway 41. Mr. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager March 22, 2004 Highlands of Bluff Creek Page 3 As alternative, the applicant could also have eliminated one unit and developed three two-family structures in this location, which would also result in the moving of the street to the east, preserving the trees along Highway 41. However, this alternative would have reduced the total number of units to 17 from the 18 proposed. Additionally, the City has determined that construction of the Highway 41 trail will be done by the City. This section of trail will be completed in combination with the trail the City is constructing to the north of the Highlands project. This is being done for two reasons: 1. To ensure that the trail still gets built in the event the Highlands project does not proceed. 2. To allow for continuity in the design, engineering, permitting and construction of this pedestrian trail segment. Staff believes the development is complementary and compatible with the Arboretum Village development and is recommending approval of the land use amendment to permit cluster development, rezoning to PUD -R, the preliminary plat with a variance to the Bluff Creek primary zone, the conditional use permit and site plan approval. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority vote of the entire City Council. City Council may: 1. Grant approval of development, with or without modification of the conditions for: a. 18 units (as proposed by the developer with the revised primary zone boundary or as revised by the developer 3/4/04) by deleting condition number 1 of the preliminary plat (motion C), b. 17 units (approving three two-family units south of the private street) by specifying approval for 17 units and deleting condition 1 of the preliminary plat (motion C), or c. 15 units (maintaining the primary zone as recommended by staff) which would be approving the existing motion; or 2. Deny the development. If the plat is not approved, the City Council shall state the reasons for denial on the record, by adopting the Planning Commission's findings of fact. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 6, 2004 and on March 2, 2004, with a revised plan, dated February 3, 2004. The Planning Commission voted Mr. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager March 22, 2004 Highlands of Bluff Creek Page 4 5 in favor and 2 abstentions to deny the land use amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat with variance, conditional use permit and site plan review. The summary and verbatim minutes are item la of the City Council packet for March 22, 2004. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the five motions in the staff report based on the attached findings for approval: A. Land Use Amendment from Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density B. Conceptual and preliminary PUD approval. C. Preliminary Plat approval of the proposed development for Highlands of Bluff Creek with a variance to permit a 20 -foot setback from the Bluff Creek Primary Zone D. Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District E. Site Plan ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated March 2, 2004. 2. (Approval) Findings of Fact 3. (Denial) Findings of Fact and Recommendation 4. Letter from Susan McAllister to Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Members g.Aplan\2004 planning c \04-01 - highlands of bluff i=k\execuUve summary highlands of bluff creek.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: March 2, 2004 CC DATE: March 22, 2004 REVIEW DEADLINE: April 3, 2004 CASE #: 04-01 BY: RG, LH, TH, ML, IS, MS, ST PROPOSAL: Request for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development Within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback, Highlands of Bluff Creek. LOCATION: 2930 West 78`" Street Northeast corner of West 78u' Street and Trunk Highway 41 APPLICANT: Plowshares Development, LLC Susan McAllister 1851 Lake Drive West #550 2930 West 78b Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)361-0832 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District and BCO, Bluff Creek Overlay District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density ACREAGE: 6.52 acres DENSITY: 2.76 units/acre gross; 3.18 units/acre net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant in proposing an 18 -unit townhouse project consisting of three two - unit structures and four three -unit structures. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUD's, and amendments to PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 2 of 20 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a site plan for an 18 -unit townhouse development, Highlands of Bluff Creek, consisting of three two -unit structures and four three -unit structures. Access to the lots would be via a private street which would be constructed to a 26 -foot wide pavement standard. There would be one access point onto West 78`" Street, located at the existing curb cut for the property. The request includes a land use map amendment to permit the density transfer within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, since the PUD ordinance currently does not permit density transfer in properties guided residential — low density; and a Planned Unit Development which permits the clustering of housing units; a subdivision with a variance request for the setback from the Bluff Creek primary zone; a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; and site plan review for an 18 -unit townhouse development. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on January 6, 2004 to present a plan, similar to the current plan. At that time, the Planning Commission tabled the item to permit the applicant to revise the plans to address the numerous conditions of the staff report, to investigate the possibility of relocating the storm water pond to the north side of the development, to size the pond appropriately, to review the retaining wall, to look at reducing or eliminating the retaining wall, to realign the sewer line and to include a trail connection. The applicant has greatly improved the plan; however, they are still proposing the encroachment into the Bluff Creek primary zone. Even though they are proposing the expansion of the primary zone (approximately 4,700 square feet) in exchange for the area being removed (approximately 4,000 square feet), staff is opposed to any encroachment into the primary zone. The applicant has prepared a preliminary alternative site plan which relocated the pond to the north side of the site. However, both staff and the applicant agree that that alternative is a less desirable design which would impact the Bluff Creek primary zone more. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission in August 2003 to present a concept plan for the property. The concept plan included 24 units in three and four -unit structures. The Planning Commission was generally supportive of some type of townhouse project for the site, but with fewer units. As part of the submittal process, staff requested that the applicant prepare a sketch plan (sketch 1) to establish the capacity of the site based on a twin home development, ignoring the primary zone boundary, as outlined in the Bluff Creek Overlay District standards. The sketch plan established 18 units as the maximum potential development density of the site. However, such a plan does not assure that 18 units will be approved, since any proposed development would still need to comply with city code requirements. The applicant initially submitted a plan containing 19 units in three and four -unit structures (alternate plan 1). However, this plan ignored the primary zone boundary and proposed two access points onto West 78'h Street. Staff rejected the plans. The next plan (alternate plan 2) shifted the development south on the site in recognition of the primary zone. However, alternate plan 2 did not incorporate two and three -unit structures similar to the development to the east. The applicant revised the plans to include two and three -unit buildings, Highlands of Bluff Creek, which is the proposal being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 3 of 20 On the south and east sides of the development is Arboretum Village which consists of townhouses. To the north of West 78`" Street, the townhouses are constructed as two, three and four -unit structures at a Net Density of 3.5 units per acre (137 units = 39 acres = 3.5). South of West 78d' Street the townhouses consist of four, six and eight -unit structures at a Net Density of 8.7 units per acre (242 units = 27.8 acres = 8.7). The overall net density of the Arboretum Village development is 5.7 units per acre. The project abuts the headwaters of Bluff Creek. Approximately 30 percent of the site is located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone that includes the wooded area on the north side of the development which slopes down to the wetland complex north of the property. The proposed development encroaches into the primary zone by approximately 35 feet adjacent to Block 3 in exchange for expanding the primary zone by 40 feet in the area of the existing barn and corral. Additionally, the applicant has incorporated a planting plan within this area to help re - vegetate this area. However, the primary zone is intended to be preserved in its existing state and expanded and protected if possible. While staff supports the granting of a setback variance to permit a 20 -foot setback rather than a 40 -foot setback due to the site constraints even after reducing the pavement width, but expanding the pond, we do not support the encroachment into the primary zone itself. The applicant's site plan lays out the development in a logical manner and the houses have significant articulation. The only issue not addressed is how the individual buildings will be differentiated from one another. The applicant's narrative states that, "the use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection shall provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building." However, there is no specific plan submitted that will outline exactly how this "visual variety" will be achieved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. Additionally, the applicant should incorporate the use of different window treatments, e.g. shutters, window boxes, etc., and types, e.g. multi -paned, half round, dormers, etc., to assist in the individualization of the buildings. Staff is recommending that the land use plan amendment be approved contingent on final PUD development plan approval and Metropolitan Council approval, the concept and preliminary Planned Unit Development be approved, the preliminary plat be approved with a variance to the Bluff Creek setback subject to modifications to the plan and the appropriate conditions of approval, the conditional use permit be approved, and the site plan be approved. BACKGROUND On July 24, 2000, the City Council approved the applicant's request for a zoning ordinance amendment (ZOA #00-1) to allow petting farms as an interim use in the A-2, Agricultural Estate district. On July 24, 2000, the City Council also approved the applicant's request for an interim use permit (IUP #00-2) to operate a petting farm. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 4 of 20 In May 2001, the City approved Arboretum Village, a planned unit development located directly south and east of the applicant's property. As part of this development, an outlot was created to preserve the natural features. This outlot is south of a wetland and includes the wetland buffer area. This outlot abuts the applicant's property on the north and east sides. In 2001, the city undertook utility expansion in the BC -7 and BC -8 sewer subdistricts. This utility improvement brought sanitary sewer and water service from Galpin Boulevard to the west side of Highway 41. As part of the Arboretum Village 2°d Addition, the developer extended sanitary sewer service to the easterly property line of the site. As part of a state project on TH 41 that corresponded with the Arboretum Village development, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) required the southerly driveway access on the applicant's property to Highway 41 be closed and relocated for safety reasons to West 78"' Street. On June 24, 2002, the Chanhassen City Council approved Conditional Use Permit #2000-3 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District for Miss Rosie's Farm and an amendment to Interim Use Permit #2000-2 to permit revision of the petting farm plan with a variance for the use of gravel driveways or grass pave system. On January 6, 2004, the project, Highlands of Bluff Creek, was tabled by the Planning Commission for additional refinement to the plan. I,7DY�II ►i`I1►Cl Justification for Rezonine to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 6.5 acres from A2 to PUD -R, Planned Unit Development -R. The project consists of 18 townhouse units incorporated in three 2 -unit structures and four 3 -unit structures. The review criteria are taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD in this instance is to permit density clustering for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for an internal transfer of density. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. The proposed development provides a compatible development with the surrounding development and preserves the Bluff Creek corridor subject to the recommended modifications to the plan. The proposed amendment and rezoning assist in the furtherance of the following land use goals of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 5 of 20 The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing opportunities. The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between different uses of different types. Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. The proposed amendment and rezoning assist in the furtherance of the following housing goals of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: A balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life -cycle. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. Staff is proposing the following development standards govern the development of the property. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a townhouse development consisting of two and three -unit structures. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each building proposed for development shall comply with the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses Two and three -unit townhouse structures. Accessory Use (on Outlot B only) Gazebo Retaining Wall Maintenance Shed School Bus Shelter Picnic Shelter Sidewalks Project Identification Sign Street, Private C. Setbacks The following building setbacks shall apply Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 6 of 20 West 78th Street 50 ft. TH 41 50 ft. Perimeter of townhouse lot (front, rear and end) 10 ft. East Development Property Line 30 ft. Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A) 20 ft., with the first 10 ft. as buffer d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height 1. The standard for hard surface coverage is 30% for the overall development. 2. The maximum building height shall be two stories/35 feet. e. Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Materials used shall be from the approved material pallet. 3. All exterior equipment shall be screened by walls or landscaping. f. Site Landscaping and Screening 1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, shall be installed when the adjacent grading and construction is completed. 2. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. g. Signage 1. One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance on West 78th Street. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. 2. Signage shall be comprised of individual dimensional letters and logos. h. Lighting Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 7 of 20 1. A shoe box fixture with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development for area lighting. 2. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. SUBDIVISION REVIEW The applicant is proposing an 18 -lot subdivision with two outlots and a private street. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The northern portion of the site is enveloped by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Primary Zone extends to the edge of the canopy/tree line. The plans should be revised to show the Primary Zone boundary as determined by City staff. City code requires that all structures maintain a 40 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 20 feet of the setback. Lot 2, Block 2; Lots 1-3, Block 3; and Lots 1-3, Block 4 do not meet the required 40 -foot setback and, in fact, several of the units encroach into the Primary Zone. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone must be preserved. Due to site constraints, staff recommends a variance that would allow a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary with no grading occurring within the first 10 feet of the setback. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The plans propose to grade about 70% of the site for the new 18 -unit townhouse pads, a proposed private driveway ending with a partial hammerhead turnaround and a stormwater pond. The proposed grading will prepare the site for lookout and walkout lots. Drainage swales have been proposed along the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. The plan proposes a four -foot retaining wall along the south side of the proposed storm pond. The existing site drainage runs off site from the southwesterly quarter of the parcel to the east and north toward Bluff Creek. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the drainage from the street, the front yards, the rear yards of Lots 7-18 and route the storm water to a proposed NURP pond in the southeasterly comer of the site. The applicant is proposing an outlet control structure to control the discharge of water from the proposed pond. The overflow water will be conveyed via storm sewer to an existing storm sewer, along the south side of West 78th Street, ending at a regional storm pond at the northwest quadrant of Century Boulevard and Highway 5. The amount of area that will still drain off site to the north toward Bluff Creek has been reduced. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for staff review. Staff has reviewed the calculations and found that only minor modifications are needed. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 8 of 20 the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. Storm Water Management CBMH-6 should have a two -foot sump since it is the last structure that is road accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond. The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Complete storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time." The note regarding positive drainage should be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. Easements A drainage and utility easement should be provided over the proposed storm water pond. Erosion and Sediment Control Riprap and geotextile fabric should be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy- duty mono -mono silt fence with 4 -foot spacing of metal T -posts and 1" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light-duty silt fence should also be installed between the townhomes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 9 of 20 Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area Steeper than 3:1 7 days is not actively being worked.) 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 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 facility. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on residential townhome development rates of $1,967/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 6 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $11,802. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Medium density townhome developments have a connection charge of $3,824 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $22,944 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for water quality if NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from off-site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $34,746. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 10 of 20 Other Agencies 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Century Trail; also water service is available from West 78th Street. The applicant is proposing to extend the sewer line along the private street to service the proposed lots from an existing stub on the southeast comer of the parcel. The watermain is proposed to be looped through the site from West 78th Street and connect with the existing water stub at the southeast comer of the property. A minimum 30 -foot wide public easement will be required over the public sewer and watermain. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. The assessments for the BC-7/BC-8 project were based on the existing zoning for the site with one residential unit. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (18) than what the property had been assessed for, the additional 17 units (18-1=17) will be charged the sanitary sewer and water assessment unit that was in place for the BC-7/BC-8 project. The sanitary sewer assessment unit for the BC-7/BC-8 project was $300 and the water assessment unit was $1,694 for a total per unit cost of $2,994. Based on these rates, the total amount due payable to the City for the additional 17 units will be $50,898 (17 @ 2,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. Hook-up charges are for core utility system infrastructure, i.e. wells, lift stations, water towers, etc. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District and MnDOT. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page I 1 of 20 STREETS The plan shows a full access off of West 78`s Street along the south side of the parcel. The applicant is proposing a 26 -foot wide private street with concrete curb and gutter and a partial hammer -head turnaround. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshall. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design per City code. Lot Tabulation: Lot/Block Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.) Ll B1 3,960 46 86 L2 B1 3,103 36 86 L3 B1 3,960 46 86 Ll B2 3,914 39 86 L2 B2 3,903 38 86 Ll B3 3,944 44 86 L2 B3 3,103 36 86 1-3 B3 3,960 46 86 Ll B4 3,960 46 86 L2 B4 3,103 36 86 L3 B4 3,960 46 86 Ll B5 3,960 46 86 L2 B5 3,960 46 86 Ll B6 3,960 46 86 L2 B6 3,960 46 86 Ll B7 3,960 46 86 L2 B7 3,103 36 86 L3 B7 3,960 46 86 Outlot A 74,561 # NA NA Outlot B 104,312 # NA NA TH 41 37,374 Total 1284,007 # The outlot boundary shall be adjusted to correspond with the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary. The Planned Unit Development does not have minimum lot sizes. The overall density is 3.18 units per acre. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 12 of 20 PARKS AND RECREATION Staff has reviewed the Plowshares Development proposal for an 18 -unit townhouse project (McAllister Parcel) as it relates to the park and trail section of the city's comprehensive plan. This property lies within the park service area of the Bluff Creek Park Preserve. The preserve features expansive open space, natural areas, a five -acre open space/park area at the north end of Century Boulevard and a trail system; however, a public playground or ball field is not located within walking distance. A private playground facility owned by the Arboretum Village Association is located just south of the McAllister property. A sidewalk connection to the city's comprehensive trail system is included for this groject. The nearest section of the trail system is located just to the south of the property along West 78 Street. The applicant is providing a trail connection along Highway 41 from West 78`s Street to the northern property line which shall connect to a trail completing the Bluff Creek headwaters trail loop being constructed by the city this year. The developer shall be Fespensible for- planning, engineering, and 1 __1__1.11 .l • m • 1 11 C 1 _.___ C.._.__ 1__ __._)_ __'l C___J L standads. The city has decided to include the trail segment from West78th Street to the north property line as part of the city project. This section of trail will be completed in combination with the trail the City is constructing to the north of the Highlands project. This is being done for two reasons: 1. To ensure that the trail still gets built in the event the Highlands project falls apart. 2. To allow for continuity in the design, engineering, permitting and construction of this pedestrian trail segment. It is recommended that the applicant pay park fees in lieu of land dedication on seventeen of the eighteen lots. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single family home on the property. The park fee will vary from $2,200 to $2,800 per unit, depending on the number of dwellings in each building. LANDSCAPING Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the McAllister parcel are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 6.52 ac. Baseline canopy coverage 42% or 2.75 ac. Minimum canopy coverage required 30% or 196 ac. Proposed tree preservation 28% or 1.81 ac. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 13 of 20 The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage .15 ac. Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement .18 ac. or 7,841 SF Total number of trees to be planted 8 trees The developer will be required to plant 8 trees as a part of reforestation in addition to one tree per home according to city ordinance. One tree shall be added in the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 5. Buffer yard planting is required along West 78"' Street, Highway 41 and the east property tine. Although existing vegetation along the highway is proposed to be preserved, the developer is including additional landscaping in that area. Buffer yard requirements are as shown in the table: Landscaping Item Required Proposed Buffer yard B* — South property line, 440', 9 overstory trees 13 overstory trees buffer width 20' 13 understory trees 23 understory trees 22 shrubs 12 shrubs Buffer yard B* — West property line, 250', 5 overstory trees 10 overstory trees buffer width 20' 8 understory trees 18 understory trees 13 shrubs 18 shrubs Buffer yard B* — East property line, 250', 5 overstory trees 2 overstory trees buffer width 20' 8 understory trees 13 understory trees 13 shrubs 16 shrubs Boulevard Trees — W. 78th St., 1 per 30' 15 overstory trees 13 overstory trees Applicant does not meet minimum requirements for the east buffer yard overstory plantings, boulevard plantings or south buffer yard shurbs The landscape plan shall be revised to show the minimum number of plantings required. The existing woods on the north side of the property consist of a large stand of maple -basswood forest, a type of native forest that is generally referred to as `Big Woods.' It is of good quality; there is sufficient regeneration of trees, only minimal amounts of buckthorn around the edges of the woods and minimally impacted by the existing use of the property. Staff recommends that these woods be preserved fully intact. The primary boundary line should run parallel to the edge of the woods. Preservation of this area would also help greatly in meeting canopy coverage requirements for the site and eliminate the need for reforestation plantings. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 14 of 20 GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The development proposes a total of 18 townhouse units consisting of three two -unit structures and four three -unit structures. The proposal includes single -level townhomes with walkouts or basements. Access to the lots would be via a private street which would be constructed to a 26 -foot wide pavement. The site plan proposed preserving the majority of the trees within the northern portion of the property. Additionally, trees shall be preserved along Highway 41. The applicant's site plan lays out the development in a logical manner and the houses have significant articulation. The only issue not addressed is how the individual buildings will be differentiated from one another. The applicant's narrative states that, "the use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection shall provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building." However, there is no specific plan submitted that will outline exactly how this "visual variety" will be achieved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. Additionally, the applicant should incorporate the use of different window treatments, e.g. shutters, window boxes, etc., and types, e.g. multi -paned, half round, dormers, etc., to assist in the individualization of the buildings. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council Pimming Ceffmlis adopt the following five motions and adoption of the attached findings of fact and recommendation: A. "The City Council appreval of approves the Land Use Amendment from Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density contingent upon final development approval of the Planned Unit Development and Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Land Use Amendment. B. "The Rmning Gemmission Feeemmends te City Council grants conceptual and preliminary approval of PUD #2003-3 rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development — Residential, PUD -R." C. `The ity Council grants Preliminary Plat approval of the proposed development for Highlands of Bluff Creek with a variance (Variance #2003-19) to permit a 20 foot setback from the Bluff Creek Primary Zone, plans prepared by Westwood Development Services, Inc., dated 10/31/03, revised 12/05/03, 12/17/03 and 02/03/04, subject to the following conditions. 1. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3 of the preliminary plat shall be eliminated to comply with the 20 -foot Bluff Creek primary zone setback requirement. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 15 of 20 2. The property line between Outlots A and B shall follow the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary. 3. Final Plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to West 78d' Street. 4. The applicant shall submit association covenants to the city for review prior to recording. The association shall be responsible for the maintenance of any common elements of the development. 5. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication on seventeen of the eighteen lots based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single-family home on the property. The park fee, using 2004 park fees, will vary from $2,200 to $2,800 per unit, depending on the number of dwellings in each building, which shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. Y.. .. ... .. .. ... . ... .. ....__ _ .. ... .. .. - _ .. The developer does not meet minimum requirements for the east buffer yard overstory plantings, boulevard plantings or south buffer yard shrubs. One tree shall be added in the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 5. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the minimum number of plantings required. 8. The Development Design Standards shall be incorporated in the development contract. 9. All structures shall maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. 10. Roof drainage and sump pump systems for houses adjacent to the Bluff Creek Primary Zone shall be directed to the draintile behind the street curb. 11. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). Outlot A may be dedicated to the city to be preserved as open space. 12. The plans shall be revised to show the actual Primary Zone boundary as determined by City staff. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 16 of 20 13. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 14. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The applicant must submit storm sewer sizing calculations for staff review. 15. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and Type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. The silt fence shall be removed once the site has been revegetated. 16. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat. 17. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 18. The total amount due payable to the City for the additional 17 units will be $50,898 (17 @ $2,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. 19. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. 20. The applicant must be aware that the public sewer and watermain require a preconstruction meeting before the building permit issuance. 21. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPGA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 17 of 20 22. Add the following City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2109, 2201, 3101, 3104, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300 and 5301. 23. Add a stop sign at the exit side of the access. 24. Add a street light at the access. 25. On the utility plan: a. Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. b. Remove/delete the last note. c. Call out water -main fittings. d. Show sanitary sewer pipe class & slope and watermain pipe class. e. Watermain shall be 8" PVC C-900 pipe. 26. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Last storm manhole discharging to the pond must be a 3 -foot sump. 27. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. 28. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshall. 29. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design. 30. CBMH-6 shall have a two -foot sump since it is the last structure that is road accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond. 31. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Complete storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. 32. The note regarding positive drainage shall be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. 33. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over the proposed storm water pond. 34. Riprap and geotextile fabric shall be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 18 of 20 35. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light duty silt fence shall be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. 36. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 37. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slove Stabilized within Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 38. 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. 39. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 40. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $34,746. 41. 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. D. `"The City Council appoves Conditional Use Permit #2003-10 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. The development must comply with the approved Planned Unit Development and Subdivision requirements for the property. 2. All structures shall maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. 3. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 19 of 20 E. "The Raiiiiing GefmrAssiefi Feeemmends approval 9 City Council approves Site Plan #2003-11, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated December 17, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The applicant shall work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. 3. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the minimum number of plantings required for each of the buffer yards. 4. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the minimum number of boulevard trees required along West 78th Street. 5. The applicant shall submit a foundation planting plan for city review and approval prior to final plat approval. 6. The applicant shall plant six trees on the site to meet reforestation requirements. 7. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 square feet in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement, property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 8. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire -resistive construction. 9. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 10. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 20 of 20 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Development Review Application 3. Memorandum from Ed Hasek to Bob Generous dated 2/3/04 4. Reduced Copy Existing Conditions 5. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat 6. Reduced Copy Preliminary Utility Plan 7. Reduced Copy Preliminary Grading & Erosion Control Plan 8. Reduced Copy Preliminary Landscape Plan 9. Reduced Copy Preliminary Tree Inventory & Preservation Plan 10. Reduced Copy Preliminary Alternate Site Plan 11. Picture Townhouse Structure Right Front 12. Picture Townhouse Structure Left Front 13. Picture Townhouse Rear 14. Concept Plan 15. Sketch 1 16. Alternate Plan 1 17. Alternate Plan 2 18. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat Jan. 6, 2004 19. Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision 20. Letter from Aaron Mlynek to Robert Generous dated 12/22/03 21. Letter from Susan McAllister to Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission dated 2/23/04 22. Letter from Brigid Gombold to Sharmeen Al-Jaff dated 01/13/04 23. Planning Commission Minutes of January 6, 2004 24. Affidavit of Mailing Notice CITY OF CHANIIASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review. On January 6, 2004 and March 2, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development — Residential rezoning (PUD -R) for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A. 4. Land Use Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. C) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: a) The proposed development preserves desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including mature trees, creeks and wetlands. b) The proposed development is a more efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through the clustering of the development on the site and the use of a private street. C) The proposed development is a high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. d) The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. e) The proposed development is Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. f) The proposed development preserves the Bluff Creek Corridor primary zone. g) The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not affordable housing. h) The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use of the clustering of buildings. i) The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. 6. Subdivision a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance subject to approval of the variance and revisions as recommended in the staff report. b) The subdivision meets all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. c) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan. d) 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. e) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter. f) The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage. g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will dedicate all appropriate new easements. h) The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are available or will be constructed with the development. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: (1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. (2) Lack of adequate roads. (3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. (4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 7. Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: a) The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b) The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c) The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d) The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e) The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f) The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g) The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h) The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i) The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j) The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k) The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. 9 1) The proposed development meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback variance. 8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to develop the site and preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The site constraints of the primary zone and West 786' Street lead to the need for a variance. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with surrounding development. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but is due to site constraints. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a) The proposed development is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements; c) The proposed development preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable subject to the revisions of the staff report by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developments or developing areas; d) The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space subject to the revisions recommended in the staff report with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: (1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; (2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; (3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and (4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 10. The planning report #04-01 dated March 2, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. 0 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development — Residential rezoning (PUD -R) for an 15 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 15 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 15 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback subject to the recommendations contained in the staff report. ADOPT D by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2°a day of March, CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Uli Sacchet, Chairman 7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT:S�.�c� ✓:l�N� ��CIL ADDRESS: (SS 1 1_-Yz _ Temporary Sales Permit Lp. ko Y Voo 55o TELEPHONE (Daytime) OWNER: ADDRESS: -2A T' U3- 1 `3r�' S�• TELEPHONE: 4 SL A? -4 So91'i A list of all property ownersw�-ithin 50 feet of the boundp(j�ries of the pro rty must be included withJ�the application.* 60Q, ' _ `M,I' �i6 i 15%P�jV wwt ) Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/]" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. X Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit Lp. ko Y Voo _ CL Conditional Use Permit b cz H�-• + _ Vacation of ROW/Easements 4L6 Interim Use Permit Variance 11-0 L Q<:M✓ �^c S.A."t Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit _k Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _Sign Permits —_ Sign Plan Review X Notification Sign ds✓• Shy X SRO Plan Review' 3 10 bid's • X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" rj0 ees ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision' Q f5 TOTAL FEE $3,4Zo e° L 7,4g57 Pj =� �'1175 A list of all property ownersw�-ithin 50 feet of the boundp(j�ries of the pro rty must be included withJ�the application.* 60Q, ' _ `M,I' �i6 i 15%P�jV wwt ) Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/]" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DE: TOTALACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT �^ YES NO PRESENTZONING ! vL f (W l l IAI� REQUESTED ZONING j< - PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION�=I Uda REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION _L-- - n , ' J REASON FOR THIS REQUEST -1-6 f� eAxP nne, `T A& This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120- days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. —,%_ to 3l lo3 Signature of plicant-,--` Date ld 3/ p3 Signaturb 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. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. PLANNING. ENGINEERING .SURVEYING MEMORANDUM To: Bob Generous, Planner, City of Chanhassen From: Ed Hasek Date: February 3, 2004 Plowshares - Highlands of Re: Bluff Creek CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 0 3 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Project No.: 20032566 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: 953-937-5150 Fac 952-937-5822 Toll free: 140&937-5150 E-mail: wpsWreriwoodps.com TNIIN CMESIME'MO ST. aero :?,ul"T3:i.: On behalf of Plowshares Development LLC we are pleased to resubmit our application for the development of the Highlands of Bluff Creek as a residential townhome neighborhood. With this application we are requesting approval for a comprehensive plan amendment, PUD, site plan review, CUP, subdivision, and variance for the construction of a private street and 18 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of land that includes two small parcels currently owned by the City (.34 ac.), and Pulte Homes (.10 ac.). The parcel is located in the northeast corner of Highway 41 and West 78th Street. EXISTING CONDITIONS A hobby farm that includes a home, barn, and several out buildings currently occupies the property. With the construction of West 78h Street access was change from Highway 41 to a curb cut on 78th Street. The property lies within the HC -2 Overlay District, and partially within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The approximate BCOD boundaries (primary and secondary) have been located both on the plans and in the field. These boundaries have been adjusted as directed by staff, and approximately 30% of the site is currently within the BCOD primary zone. Roughly 42% of the site is covered by the canopy of trees that include oak, maple, basswood, elm, pine and spruce species, the majority of which are located on the north half of the property that slopes to the north and to Bluff Creek. A tree survey has been completed, and 106 significant trees were located and tagged. Field notes indicate that 14% of the significant trees are diseased or damaged, which is not unusual for a mature oak -maple -basswood woodland. Soils found on the property are generally loamy and of the Kilkenny -Lester soils series, well drained, 0 to 10% slopes, and suited to typical residential construction practices. Slopes ranging to 40 % exist along the west and south edges of the site as back -slopes down to the roadways created when Highway 41 and West 78th Street were constructed. The property drains in all directions from a high point of elevation 1011 feet located just west of the existing home. The south two-thirds of the site is generally flat and sits 2 to 8 feet above 78h Street. Public utilities are available to the property from West 78th Street and Century Trail. A regional storm pond is located to the southeast and along Highway 5 at Century Boulevard. The Arboretum Village subdivision (zoned PDDR) abuts the parcel on the south (6 -unit structures) and east (2, 3, and 4 unit townhomes) sides. Highway 41 separates the site from a single-family home to the west, and Bluff Creek is located to the north. D®gyngthe RA+ Tod W/ 1972 Page 2 of 3 February 3, 2004 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Since last meeting with the commission in early January we have met with City staff on several occasions at all levels to review the list of conditions attached to the staff comments on the previous application. The plan now reflects revisions to resolve issues as identified in those meetings. It was also agreed that a number of comments will still remain and will be addressed with our application for Final Plat. Plowshares Development LLC is proposing the development of 18 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of property to a density of 3.18 units per acre. Buildings will vary from 2 to 3 homes in size, and will have lookout, or walkout basements. Each home is of single story construction with a full basement and approximately 2,700 s.f. of living area possible. Attached 2 car garages are 480 s.f. in area. The site will be accessed by a single 26 -foot back-to-back private street built to City standards with a 5 - foot wide sidewalk located on one side of the street (adjacent to the curb). Each home will have a two -car garage, and guest parking (2.5 spaces per home) will be provided in the driveways and on one side of the private street. A 6 -foot sidewalk will also be constructed along West 78th Street to link Century Trail to a new trail now included along Highway 41, and the Bluff Creek trail system. Storm water that is collected from impervious surfaces (approximately 1.5 acres) will be routed to a pond designed to City standards located in the southeast corner of the site. Project utilities will connect to existing stubs in 78th Street and Century Trail. Each home will be individually connected to all utilities. Approximately 34% (.94 ac.) of the existing tree canopy will be removed for the construction of roads, driveways, homes, trail system, and associated grading. Outlot A (proposed as the Primary BCOD Zone in the north part of the property) will be preserved by a Conservation Easement or dedication to the City. Care will be taken to preserve additional trees and associated tree canopy at the time of construction. A small area of existing trees and canopy (and associated topography) along Highway 41 will also be preserved to provide separation and screening from this arterial roadway. Best Management Practices, and the standards and specifications established in the City Ordinances will be adhered to to reduce any additional tree losses. As indicated previously, the north portion of the site will be preserved in the BCOD. A variance to allow construction to 20 feet from the primary zone is requested in order to place as much of the site in the BCOD as possible. The proposed BCOD will preserve the most native and significant area of woodlands and slope on the site. Approximately 7,000 s.f. of the primary zone will be removed, and 2,600 s.f. of area will be added back. 8,700 s.f. of tree canopy will be reestablished within the primary zone with health native overstory tree species. Landscaping will be concentrated as screening along Highway 41 and West 78th Street, and as a buffer along the east property line. A street tree planting scheme has been added to the private street frontage, and foundation plantings will provide additional landscape interest and detailing at the entry and front fagade of each home. We have provided staff with the necessary sketch development plan (meeting all of the ordinance requirements) to support the construction of 18 homes on this site. The sketch plan yielded an average of 11,400 s.f. per unit and included a pubic cul-de-sac. While the development is proposed to be platted as townhomes with small lots around each home, the average area per unit for the proposed plan is 12,500 s.f. per home with a private street built to city standards. Designing the future today... M I N N E A P O L I S S T. C L O U D Page 3 of 3 February 3, 2004 The proposed 2 and 3 unit buildings are consistent with surrounding development (2, 3, 4, and 6 unit buildings) in Arboretum Village, and provide a reasonable transition of land use and density adjacent to Highway 41. The inclusion of three unit buildings also provides an interior unit at a slightly different price point than the end units. The front entry/porch is recessed from the front of the building by 6 to 8 feet to break up the front facade, and a porch and deck at the rear of each home provides 10 feet of relief along the back wall of the structures. The use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection will provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building. Each building will vary from those abutting it, and no two abutting buildings will look the same. The requirements for storm water ponding, and associated requirements for floor elevations above anticipated water levels, dictates that the buildings on this site be kept relatively high. The pond is located along West 7e, preserving the greatest amount of tree canopy, and will outlet to the regional pond along Highway 5. STAFF REVIEW As previously mentioned, we have met with staff to address the list of conditions prepared for their last review, and have addressed those issues pertaining specifically to the preliminary application as directed. Also, and at the direction of City staff, we have prepared an Alternate Site Pan that considers the possibility of locating the pond to the north and within the BCOD (moving the housing south to the minimum 50 -foot setback line). We have met with, or received review comments from all departments of staff, and find that there is both support and concern for each development alternative. Storm water wants to flow naturally to the north, but if the pond were to be constructed in the BCOD, an additional .25 - acre of tree canopy and 6 surveyed significant trees would be lost, and a discharge pipe would have to be installed through the trees and north to Bluff Creek. Because this property is not under developer control a tree survey was not conducted in this area. Additional trees may need to be removed due to the installation of the storm water discharge pipe. We feel the best solution for the development of this property to be the plan as proposed with the creation of new woodlands and canopy in the BCOD. The plan as proposed also allows the greatest separation of homes from West 78h Street, and reduces the amount of infrastructure necessary to construct the project. We appreciate the opportunity that we have had in working with City planning, engineering, and other staff to bring this project forward again for your review. We have had occasion to meet with the various departments to identify and work through a number of issues, and have responded by continuing to refine and rework the development plans for this revised application. We are extremely excited about this project and look forward to working with the City of Chanhassen and it staff toward the successful completion of the Highlands of Bluff Creek. Designing the future today... M I N N E A P O L I S S T. C L O U D �tF4tF�3gg gg §§�4 $�'aY p$gpg gprg�� }asiBa;}gS zill } o!!�t{4+•®.ec+1.. 1. e!l.s� �_ J 1 of 3 Mal Iff. ME -r r - 1; N U Q /. J --- ------------1___— —_ -------- 15] xv 91•ICII E002i[V21 .•GIPRTAi2COD2\8•P�9952EOL2ve w fY.l U a a E I LI,. Is Hf gill 0 Z w w v o U) o �, _ 0 oN z w =W M a C) C) C z Ow¢ m N Y W U U gg8 8a �I-� YAtiB! .�k j cElI AR! A.4 a �Yuo3 ;'. Y�SitAO =f)j}5Es Ei / i.�� ' In ,n! In INN rb w ozana soozi�oim 'o�t9 � P n t--rrl a � � � fi t•{ i I ra 1. t i1 rc 4"1 rtc) n 41. .__. — —_--------------/ m ..1mc. lwlcoize z O F � ¢ f a a z z O U a O y 8 Q ilm / � 3 � P n t--rrl a � � � fi t•{ i I ra 1. t i1 rc 4"1 rtc) n 41. .__. — —_--------------/ m ..1mc. lwlcoize \ z m! ®:-------------------------« cm z \ \ 0 � uj / �{ e i1lt� 'i a �g t� � aaaa 1 t 113 xF 2� 1 211 Iti 3 1 lE ! { # a� a � 1 i it 5 t iF { f a d a:if • t Au f3l � I INNER MWE Z 0 t- 0 0 F w Z 0 0 0 0 LL 0 O Z ISJ .d [I LiQO :WZL[OL20 .W"IOJ1dYY..2E[OZ\BW�9952EOp2�y a a .-d- m m w ill g Io a F � I INNER MWE Z 0 t- 0 0 F w Z 0 0 0 0 LL 0 O Z ISJ .d [I LiQO :WZL[OL20 .W"IOJ1dYY..2E[OZ\BW�9952EOp2�y a a .-d- m m w V F CW\ I � � I l ------------------------ L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1S] xd <CS U IW/2 /a OIVIOtlAl995 W2\6w\9%2CWU 'd U a Z w rn m w Z ¢W UU OCE U 0 0 N Cri O W L. ;r_k±u I M� --L-------- . , ;r_k±u I M� --L-------- t r z ill IAN @$ ill @$ p$$pgpgp3yyqgqgi @@gg gg � !lSEe��i1�4�3�i�5555IP�aF� �P u o�®,ttl.•mn.a�oeee®e®®.ea l .N . c Wl MY ��ftflltllt �> Ilii ��i3i3i3��i3i3i3 i m ... 1 H= 1F1 tz, J IE / ! fist nq8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —/ r I { _:02 I 1 / ! fist nq8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —/ 83ach Run 'a I 8E s s � T 985�� 8Ees G•3[T 3 .t [Insert List Name and tYthflrss of Lbcal Oovemin�nt'[" t-lei6j�CtTy dfi'h`at� 7700 14 $f Applicant: Genevieve Bolling, Westwood Professional 5eryfces Inc Application Numbe rvU Type of Application (check one): ❑ Exemption Decision ® No Loss Decision ❑ Replacement Plan Decision ❑ Banking Plan Decision Wetland Type/Boundary Decision Date of Decision: August 12.2003 Check One: ❑ Approved with conditions List of Addressees: [Landowner] Genevieve Bolling, Westwood Professional Services, Inc. {Members of Technical Evaluation Panel] Chip Hentges, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District Lynda Peterson, Board of Soil and Water Resources ❑ Denied [Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable)] Bob Obermeyer, Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District [Department of Natural Resources Regional Office] Julie Ekman, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Wetlands Coordinator @ Ecological Services Section 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155 Corp of Engineers Project Manager @ Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO -R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 [Individual members of the public who requested a copy, summary only] (none) - Page I of 2 McAllister No toss (April 2003) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard • P.O. Box 147 a Chanhassen, MN 55317 Name of Applicant: Ms. Genevive Bolling Project Location: Plowsbares/McAllister Property Chanhassen MN 55317 (T1 16N R23W S9) Type of Application (check one): Date of Decision: August 12, 2003 ❑ Exemption Decision. El No Loss Decision ❑ Replacement Plan Decision ❑ Banking Plan Decision Findings and Conclusions The applicant submitted a no wetlands determination request for the above site, along with a description of the on-site conditions and supplementary site mapping information, The City agrees with the applicant's findings that there are no jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property. CITY OF CHANHASSEN B Title: Water Resources Coordinator Date: —4 zcp-s— Dec•22. 2003 10:10AM No -1943 P. 2/3 ,1%09 CO 219 East Frontage Road m� Waconia, MN 55387 1946 " Phone: 952442-5101 Fax: 952-442-5497 Cynty Sir�nttoJ/www<wnrver.mn.us SWCDSWCD pgy Mus+on Jtnremaxh To provide l"duah(p In cometwilan and teach stewardshlp ofthe sal, wale' mrd r.fatedresoarca th,ro h a balanced croopenatMe program Mar protect, ratorw and Improver Mose re wrces. December 22, 2003 Robert Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed McAllister Parcel Development Mr. Generous: Thank you for sending a copy of the McAllister Parcel development to the SWCD office. Please review the following storm water, erosion, and sediment control comments and recommendations. Stoma Water Beginning March 10, 2003 all developments disturbing I -acre or more or part of a contiguous development which will disturb more than 1 -acre require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Pollution Control Agency (PCA). The owner / operator of the proposed development must apply for and receive the NPDES permit prior to beginning construction activities. Any development disturbing more than I -acre and creating more than I -acre of impervious surface must also have permanent storm water treatment. It appears this is being done as the McAllister Parcel preliminary plan shows the storm water runoff being managed by a proposed storm water basin. For water quality purposes, it is recommended to construct the storm water basin as a two -cell basin, rather than a single cell, narrow, shallow basin. The two cell basin could consist of a berm constructed in the middle of the pond at an elevation of one foot below NWL (i.e. 997). The berm would encourage the first cell of the pond to retain more solids before the water flows into the second cell. Eventually, vegetation would grow on the berm and provide minimal additional treatment as well. The overland flow from lots 15 through 18 may need a slight berm to divert the water into the first cell of the two -cell basin. In the General Grading and Drainage Notes it states "All construction shall conform tq local rules" and "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time". The constiuction must meet all state rules as well as local (i.e. NPDES permit). Additionally, the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations from the site while maintaining positive drainage. The AN YQUAL OPPOWkWITX F.WUWWR Dec •22- 2003 10:11AM No•1943 P. 3/3 note "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time" should be amended to include verbiage pertaining to the sites, obligation to meet dewatering regulations according to NPDES. For fiuther information check Part IV, Section D. 1 and 2 (page 15 of 26) of the NPDES permit (MN R100001). Erosion Control 1. Riprap and geotextile fabric needs to be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. 2. No temporary mulch or seeding was mentioned in the erosion control notes. Temporary mulch and seed is needed within 7, 14, 21 days (depending upon slope) of final grade or if the area is going to remain exposed and fallow for those time frames. Sediment Control 1. A light duty silt fence should be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. 2. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-duty mono -mono silt fence with 4 foot spacing of metal T -posts and i" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. 3. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets must include daily street scraping and as - needed street sweeping (i.e. weekly sweeping). If there are any questions regarding this review please contact the SWCD office. Sincerely, Aaron Ml ek, CPESC-IT Urban Conservation Technician Susan McAllister February 23, 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED Honorable Mayor "Thomas Furlong, Hand Delivered f E B 2 3 2004 Members of the City Council Planning Commission Members, City of Chanhassen CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 7700 Market Blvd., Chanhassen, MN 55317 In 1995 when 1 became a member of the Steering Committee for the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan Draft I was told by Irate Aanenson, Planning Director, that she didn't think there was any Primary Zone on my property then in the same breath she corrected herself by stating she thought just the upper comer of my property was in the Primary Zone. Magically, as years have passed now I find the city saying half of my property lies in the Primary Zone. How is it that I have become burdened for protection of such a large area of the Primary Zone? I felt my property was going to become a good target for allowing the Primary Zone to fall on half of my property because from its conception in 1994 the city was already well aware that my intent was never to develop my site. I actually came up with a very nice way to keep it green and at the same time make the concept into a business, Miss Rosie's Farm®. So when the Bluff Creek Ordinance was at the public hearing stage even if I had wanted to oppose the amount of Primary Zone that ultimately ended up on my property, it would have been a futile effort on my part because of my well known intent to use the land for a farm and my passion for wanting to protect every tree on the site. Actually there had been more than one reference made regarding my land as being "ear marked" for a park when Pulte was in their development stage. I was actually given a heads up warning to be aware of this from someone inside city hall. In the city's mind they probably felt some comfort in assuming there was a good possibility that I would someday even donate my property to the city after I had quit using it as a petting farm. I now feel that when it would have come time to reapply for my interim use permit, the city would have made acquiring my land part of the trade off for my extension request. Unfortunately, last year as many of you are aware, I was a victim of a serious car accident that changed every aspect of my life within seconds. I was going to make a living by running a farm in the city but as a result of the accident I need to develop the property in order to realize its economic value. I have had to change the management of my land from being the passionate preservationist to becoming a developer — overnight. I can honestly say this has been the hardest thing I've ever had to do. I see my land as holding the potential of much needed value for me. I have worked hard for it and have personally sacrificed for it. I expect the city to allow me to get a fair market price for it. In 1999 when Pulte intended to develop the land around my farmstead I supported their development plan for the good of my community. I could have been a thom in your sides but I felt I needed to act responsibly. In fact, I remember standing before you on December 5, 2000 at Pulte's Arboretum Village public hearing asking you to "allow development to happen in a big way", "to allow the developer and the city to have what we so much needed — housing". I ask that you allow the same precedence that was given Pulte to be applied to this plan. The rules were relaxed for Pulte and I am asking for the same fairness to be given to me by relaxing the Primary Zone to the North side of my property to be consistent with the intent of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan Draft of July 1996, and Final Copy, December 1996, Article 11, Watershed Vision and Goals, l lb. Collective Statement found on Page 8, 5'" paragraph: All vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved. This aligns with Kate's original statement to me that only the upper comer of my property has the Primary Zone on it. Secondly, to do what needs to be done by city staff and the developer to accommodate the allowable number of units the city calculated in the official "List of Residential Transition Properties within the Bluff Creek Corridor" conducted I believe in 1997. Which, according to my calculations with taking into consideration the "Final Plat is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to W. 78" ST.", I come up with a figure of 22 or 23 units for my site. 2930 West 78'" Street Chanhassen, MN 55317-4501 952-474-5099 Being a member of the Steering Committee for the Bluff Creek Corridor since 1995, I believe the committee worked on the "vision" and how to achieve the vision for about one year. We were told the city had to acquire the Primary and Secondary Zone through dedication by means of a development plan each time pieces of the corridor were to be developed or through direct purchase by the city. It was never meant to be "a taking" because obviously you need to pay someone for taking their land. Referencing Bluff Creek Watershed Plan Draft, July 1996, and Final Copy, December 1996, Article 11. Watershed Vision and Goals, 1 lb. Collective Statement Page 7, Paragraph 3; It states: "Private property ownership rights are recognized." So it came to pass that an ordinance needed to be created to acquire the land now to be known as the Primary Zone which prohibits development of any kind in that area, which consequently took away half of my land. What was given as very clear direction from The Steering Committee to the city, back and forth we went, many times over about this was that 300 feet from where the vegetation starts was to be The Primary Zone and 40 feet around the Primary Zone is the Secondary Zone. The committee was very specific about this more than anything else we talked about for a year. We were asked as landowners and citizens of the community to define the area of protection for the Bluff Creek which we did, which was the due process steps for creating the ordinance to be known as The Bluff Creek Ordinance, Article 31, Chapter 20, Section 20-1551 to 20-1564. This placed only the North East comer tip of my property into the Primary Zone. Though you have kept much of the l lb. Collective Statement, you specifically left out the directive of the 300 feet. This directive is found on Page 8 of the Bluff Creek Water Shed Natural Resources Management Plan Draft and Final Copy, December, 1996. "All vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved." How the ordinance was written became a "bait and switch" tactic by the city. I was baited in the beginning, along with a lot of others and then the city switched things and the Secondary Zone magically became the entire Primary Zone, which ultimately took away half of my property. You are taking away the reasonable use of my property and you need to return it or compensate me for it. According to the Bluff Creek Ordinance, Section 3. Section 20-1, of the Chanhassen City Code - Cluster Development means a pattern of development that arranges the layout of buildings on a compact area of the site so as to reserve a portion of the site for common open space or green space that is protected in perpetuity. A portion is not defined as "almost half the site". It also speaks to the creation of suitable balance between the amount of open space and the development in general. It does not say total balance or half of it as being a balance; it only says suitable which says it is negotiable. It also says the Planning Director shall make a determination as to the "where" the areas are so it means it is arbitrary in the initial delineation by the Planning Director. Also, the ordinance states "ILe city intends that all development within the district meet certain criteria of judgment" which states in Section 20 —1461 Intent. Paragraph (a) "The Comprehensive Plan which includes the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, as amended from time to time",... So this speaks to negotiation of the rules again. Further, the ordinance states under Section 20 —1464 Boundary Delineation, paragraph (b); The applicant may appeal the planning director's determination of the watershed zone boundary and type to the city council. Therefore, after all that has been said and done I, Susan McAllister, the land owner, am respectfully asking the city council to bring my property's North section back to the original intent of the steering committee's vision that is specifically "All vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved." I believe this should be the Primary Zone which places the Primary Zone once again only on my upper North East comer of my property and allows a portion of the rest of the area in question to become the Secondary Zone which states in the Bluff Creek Ordinance Section 20 —1461 Intent, paragraph (b)... and to the greatest extent possible, preserving significant resources and minimizing impacts in the Secondary Zone through cluster development... The ordinance does allow for development in the Secondary Zone through use of the density transfer mechanism. According to the city's narrative we are developing 6.52 acres with about 30% of the area in the Bluff Creek Zone at 2 units per acre, which equals 13.04 units, but the Single Family Residence Ordinance automatically allows for twin homes so 13.04 becomes 26.08 units, less 15% for R.O.W., setbacks, etc. This is the city's own formula which then becomes 22.168 units rounded down to 22 units. This is the Ghost Plat Formula without the Primary Zone figured into the site. Bluff Creek Protection Area formula as follows: Using the city's "List of Residential Transition Properties within the Bluff Creek Corridor" my net density is 6 units per acre. 6.5 acres less 30% for Primary Zone equals 4.55 developable acres, multiplied by 6 net units per acre equals 27.3 units, rounded down to 27 units, less 15% for R.O.W., setbacks, etc. equals 22.95 units or 22/23 units. In order for the Bluff Creek Ordinance to be used properly and not become misused as just another mechanism for Eminent Domain without compensation, which it never was intended to be, it specifically allows for the same density that could be achieved through development of the entire site to now be transferred to a designated area. I therefore, expect the city to work proactively according to their own rules they put in place and allow me to have the 22 or 23 units that could be there without the ordinance yet through the use of density transfer. Please accept this letter as a matter of public record for the public hearing phase of the development of my property. I expect to address this with city council. Respectfully, Susan McAllister, Landowner ,`Ca::.s.- r 7t 7 tj yyrs; t it ry`i . -_ ` t-" z 3`�y{�i�Ri 4i.a � h�+�� •fbr2,l� ", stn , r-M-NN*3 � w�j � >t� �1 �� - • s �� LF't I��! y��! I. yfp k ;"�'t t� + ry�`° S Yl,s rl y •'q4.r �u .�p� vyt t 'tI! f _ Yd.t'i i ^�{. bhAy$`,y i . ♦ ! Awys - 2 � -2 ,� ��2,.. d v y,, �r r r>� '�i,y �t j ) ,71 'P -a„ ;y�"' �'•fiI'' �d S:. AlEKE Yy�g: !Niti ar � it�l' �T akr 3 s/(y �t sx MA �'r RM SI ~) v :� \.� I r�f !k ♦ "ix h �:�My �y{yj t'' �! �'! a•!'ac r s _ ry� \"'--.-fy/+s'-h ;x 5\✓f�� , a.'n`,"/m� y �f� ♦ r s�,y ra! '„L s�`i, ItIS's•I!1 ttfi : y + Bonestroo w t �+• {fie -t•.'.,. "t - :1 v� s��\ ''^\ � • � I ! � . 'r.: > �i 1! i k,, J t 1 1 r 1 1.1 l There is a continuous greenway along the creek from the Minnesota River to Lake Minnewashta — The creek corridor is more wild than domesticated. The design of an open space network has protected diverse wildlife habitats and cultural landscapes, such as farmland. In addition, there is adequate access to trails, parking, facilities and interpretive elements. There are nurimerous active areas for picnics to minimize pressure on native wild areas. The upper creek is accessible for a variety of uses including a trail system on the upper and middle reaches, with possible out -of -corridor connections to observation areas --- A multiple use trail runs north from Pioneer Trail.for biking, running and skiing. Side trails conned with neighborhoods. A community park in the upper reaches is contiguous to the trail system. There is a cross-country ski trail in the area and a bike trail north of Lyman Boulevard/Pioneer Trail. No motorized vehicles are allowed in the greenway. Significant envrronmental areas through the corridor will be identified and prioritized with a ra0ngsystem -- - The spectacular lower creek has been preserved in its natural, state with a rustic, limited -use nature trail running its length. Upstream development is limited to preserve the lower creek. Areas once degraded have been restored and maximum protection against pollution caused by urbanization has been achieved. The restoration goals for the watershed are realistic. In the lower creek, preservation of woods, stream quality, wetlands, wildlife and a nature sanctuary lets the sounds of nature, not cars, be heard. Habitats for the watershed's native animals and plants w// be debned according to their needs - The former fields and drained wetlands of the upper creek have been restored to the original big woods region vegetation. All vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved. E� . Invasive non-native species such as purple loosestrife and buckthorn are eliminated. The creek supports fish and serves as a wildlife corridor supporting deer, fox, turkeys, beaver and coyote. The wildlife is thriving and circulating freely throughout the greenway. water quality is high tMoughout the watershed -- The water quality is maintained and. protected through recharge, infiltration, grassed waterways and restored wetlands that absorb stormwater runoff. If needed, open water storage areas either in -stream or upland are developed and natural flood control is achieved through these restored wetlands as reservoirs in the upper valley. Bluff Creek Water5f7ed Natural Resources Management Plan EM Minnesota Department of Transportation �y\ 4 Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 62 Roseville, MN 55113 January 13, 2004 Sharmeen Al-Jaff Planning Department, City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: McAllister Parcel, Mn/DOT Review #P03-127 NE Quad of 78" Street and TH 41 Chanhassen, Carver Co. Control Section 1008 Dear Ms. Al -Jaffa RECEIVED JAN 16 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please address the following issues: Additional information must be submitted to determine if a Mn/DOT Drainage permit will be required. Please submit before/after drainage area maps and before/after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events verifying that all existing drainage patterns and systems affecting Mn/DOT right of way will be perpetuated. The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm water is discharged from the site must not increase). Please direct questions concerning these issues to Richard Cady (651) 634-2075 of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. Mn/DOT will be turning back jurisdiction of 78th Street to the city. However, the timing of this is not until later this year. Mn/DOT has been issuing access permits for this city street since it has been under our jurisdiction. Until the roadway is released to the city we will maintain this procedure. The developer will need to apply for an access permit from our Permit Office. Please contact Keith VanWanger in the Permit Office at (651) 582-1443 regarding access permits. The plan shows a 7% grade to the intersection at 78th Street in which there appears to be inadequate landing area. Mn/DOT does not have standards for approaches to city streets, but for the truck highway our standard is a 0.5% grade over 25 feet. We recommend that the city work with the developer to provide a safer intersection with 78th Street. ■ Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in An eaual 0000rtunity emolover complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651)582-1293. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Reviews Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (65 1) 582-1378. Sincerely, Brigid Senior Transportation Planner Copy: John Freemyer / Carver County Surveyor Roger Gustafson / Carver County Engineer Ed J. Hasek / Westwood Professional Servieces, Inc. Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL- LO_W DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL -MEDIUM DENSITY, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; PRELUVENARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW FOR AN 18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROTECT; SITE PLAN REVIEW Public Present: Name Address Jeff Russell 7632 Arboretum Village Circle Mike Ryan 2595 Southern Court Todd Simning Plowshares Development Ed Hasek, Westwood Professional Services Filen Prairie Brent Hiscox Plowshares Development Susan McAllister 2930 West 78d' Street Scott Bemas, Edina Realty 6800 France Avenue So Holly Huber 2828 Coach Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Lillehaug: Sure, I'll start. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Bob, could you explain what the adjusted, maybe you already did and I missed it. What the adjusted Bluff Creek Overlay District boundaries per city staff. What does that really mean? And I'm looking on page 2 of 6 of the preliminary plat. Are you familiar with what I'm talking about there? Okay. Generous: The applicant is proposing that to change the primary zone boundary by moving these trees out we would create a new boundary and I tried to show this in the lined area. In addition the boundary goes down in here and he would propose that that boundary be expanded to the south and it's sort of like an exchange of area. Now it is an alternative and it's you know, a policy decision whether the Planning Commission and 27 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 council wants to go forward with that. Our environmental staff did recommend that the primary zone boundary is what it is and that we keep that and work from there. Papke: Clarification on that issue. The area that's proposed by the applicant to be added to the overlay district, is that where the bam is sited? Generous: Right, and the corral area. The open area that's there. Papke: So what they're proposing to do is take out the bam, remove the barn and then attempt to reforest that. Generous: Vegetate, right exactly. Fill in that canopy covered area. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Well I think my bigger question, I want to make a quick comment is, one of my pet peeves here. I mean if you look at this report, it's a good report. But we've got way too many conditions. I think what's going to happen here is just like in the last application. I mean just a simple thing like an underground storm system that's no longer there. Well we've got 48 conditions here. I mean I don't have any confidence in what's the end product going to be. I don't have a clue. We've got 48 conditions. My main question here is, if staff is going to try to recommend pushing Lots 4, 5 and 6 out of that and enforce the setback, am I following that correctly? Can that be done without really changing this whole site plan and kind of keeping this same picture here? I mean I don't see that happening, so what are we looking at? I mean are we really going to be looking at the final product here? I don't think we would be. Generous: No. Either, well one way to comply would be to remove those 2 lots. That'd be simple and we'd see what the results are at best. Another way is to revise the plat. Shift it down and go with twins or some other alternative. I don't know. We'll leave that up to them to resolve. Lillehaug: Has this been discussed with the applicant already? Generous: We told them that this has been an issue. They wanted to come forward and see you know, again they're presenting an alternative that would change the boundaries and would be reasonable. Sacchet: They're seeing where we go for it basically. Lillehaug: So I mean I have a lot of, there's 48 plus conditions here. I have a lot of questions. Claybaugh: That's on one of the motions. There's 5 motions. 48 out of just one of the motions. W Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Generous: On the plat. Sacchet: So maybe we should take this in steps rather than try to be exhaustive. Lillehaug: Well I'm ready to make a motion to table it right now, because I don't see a complete application. Sacchet: But then in all fairness, if that's the action we would go, we should have some discussion to give staff and the applicant some idea why we're tabling. So I do think there is good reason to go through the motions here. On the other hand I would say you may just want to hold off a little bit with getting into real details and multitudes of questions until we actually get to that level of granularity. Lillehaug: Sure. Well then one question of staff here. The existing tree canopy, if you look on sheet 2 versus sheet 4 and 6. I mean they're nowhere near close to each other. I mean and that's just, I think that's an important issue that the existing tree canopy line, would you concur that it's not the same when you go from sheet to sheet. And specifically you can see it if you look at Lots 4, 5 and 6. Am I looking at that correctly? If you compare sheet 2 with sheet 4, the existing tree line is nowhere near the same. And that's how it is throughout the site. Maybe I'm missing something. Generous: It looks like they're showing them after... Sacchet: After they, they're a trade-off right? On sheet whatever. Sheet 5 I guess that is. Lillehaug: Okay. Sacchet: Actually 5 of 6 I think is clearly after the development. It shows the reforestation and then sheet 2 shows the current situation. Is that accurate? Generous: That's what it looks like, yes. Lillehaug: Alright. If you go to sheet 3 of 6, on the sanitary line. Do we have an appropriate easement for that sanitary line? East of the applicant's easterly property line. Saam: You mean west of the easterly property line? No. Lillehaug: East of the easterly property line, off the applicant's property. That storm sewer goes. Generous: In Arboretum Village. Lillehaug: It goes across a piece of property that's not his without an easement that's appearing. Saam: Yes, we do, as I remember Arboretum Village, we got easements pretty much 29 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 everywhere there weren't townhouse lots, and I don't know if Bob remembers, but all the open space I think was granted as an easement to the city. Generous: And the city also owns that land... Sacchet: Maybe we can ask that to the applicant. Maybe the applicant will remember too. Lillehaug: Alright. I'm going to stick to my important questions here. If you go to page 6 of the report. The Bluff Creek primary zone, 20 feet. I think it's supposed to be a 40 feet. I'm looking in the chart. It's supposed to be a 40 foot setback, correct? Generous: Correct. This is based on the variance. Lillehaug: Now is that, I've got to make sure I understand this correctly. Is that, it needs to be 40 feet from the primary line that is shown there? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: And we're nowhere near that. Generous: No. Sacchet: We're into the primary right now. Generous: Yeah, they're encroaching actually into the primary zone. Slagle: And your plan is to bring it to 20 feet. Generous: Make it a 20 foot setback. Lillehaug: Why? Why deviate in this case? I mean what is the outstanding circumstance that we'd, I mean the Bluff Creek Overlay District, it's supposed to be 40 feet. What is making this a different circumstance from the other adjacent properties to that whole district? Why is this different from anything else here? Generous: Well too is the location of West 78th Street as it came into this project sort of dictated how this site lays out. There is a potential that they could shift the storm water pond to the north side of the property and shift the units closer to West 78th Street. And then they may meet the setback because storm water ponds can be within that. Sacchet: Storm water could be in the setback? Generous: In the 40 foot setback, definitely. 30 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Okay. That's a water feature which is consistent with the Bluff Creek corridor and it'd be pre -treating it. There still would be the no cut zone but we would try to preserve the tree line again and that has been... Lillehaug: And that might work if you put the pond where the barn currently is, correct? Generous: Exactly, and that was one of the suggestions I had for them. Their alternative, so why don't they put it there and. I also wanted to see if they had a storm water pond there, they would have to discharge it down to the wetland. Eventually if they had to run a pipe down, then maybe they should put a trail connection down to the trail system over that pipe, since they're already going to the woods. But they came up with this alternative and have the storm water pond on the south side of the project. Lillehaug: So there's a trail, if I'm looking on sheet 2. It's way up in the north, that's the trail? Okay. You know what, I'm going to let other people talk. Thanks. Sacchet: Yeah, we can come back to you with this. We understand, this is not exhausting your questions. Slagle: I just have a couple of questions. Bob, touching upon the trail. Was there a reason given by the applicant, and I will ask them as well, but as to why there wasn't a connection down to the trail? Generous: Just that they didn't want to encroach into the treed area. The primary zone. At least to that extent. Slagle: So they don't want to encroach with a trail but they'll encroach with buildings. Generous: Yes. Slagle: Okay. Let me ask this question, and this might be one that just as a non -doable but was there ever consideration into extending whatever road that will be and having it come off Century Trail because I think you mentioned that either the city owns that land to the east or there's some. Generous: The city owns it, yes. Slagle: So, I mean have we considered instead of going onto West 78m Street, if you went to Century, would you be able to build differently and fit 18? I'm just throwing this out. Saam: I guess it may have entered my mind at one point but was quickly put to rest. First off, the applicant doesn't own the land to the east. While the city has easements on it, it's not for roadway purgoses. So now we'd be telling the applicant well yeah, you have an access off West 78 Street but go buy land. I mean that's why I quickly put that idea to rest. There is an existing access that was planned for. We just built West 78`s 31 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Street and gave them the access there. It makes sense to use it. I will point out in one other previous submittals, they had two accesses off West 78'h Street. We pushed them away from that idea also and said just use the one access so. Sacchet: Thanks Matt. Slagle: So, and I'll ask it again. We might have an application in front of us that could result in 3 townhouses or units potentially being eliminated, which might make it a, not a viable project I'm just saying perhaps to the applicant. And I guess I'm asking again, if you had a street that went to Century, would you be able to get more lots on there or would it in your opinion be the net results the same? No matter where it jets out to. Saam: I haven't looked at it in that context. One thing I will point out though Commissioner Slagle, another idea we had recommended to them regarding the ponding was that we have a, there's a pond down at the corner of Century and West 78th Street. A rather larger one to the east. We said there's some potential there to expand the size of that to treat your water. Basically pick the pond off the site. Then you have more usable area. You know with the primary zone and everything. Slagle: And how was that received? Saam: They said they'd look into it and this is I guess what we got so maybe we can ask the applicant. That's another option. I kind of hear where you're going. You're looking at options. That's another option that they could do which would maybe alleviate the primary zone setback and those issues. Ullehaug: And that's, if I can butt in here. Slagle: You certainly may. Lillehaug: And that's a regional pond so that'd be kind of the overall goal of the city to try to get rid of the smaller ponds and put them into one bigger pond? Saam: Yeah. Yeah, I mean we do like that idea. However there's other jurisdictions that have claim to that. MnDot. They would need approval through them. Maybe MnDot shot them down, I don't know. So I'll just throw that out too because it is used by the Highway Department for part of Highway 5. It is also though used by Pulte so, and MnDot's already granted approval for Arboretum Village to drain there so. Tjornhom: I have a few things. When they came before us in August. They didn't come before us. When they met with us about what. Sacchet: Work session. Tjomhom: Yes. Did they have roughly 4 or 5 units in the overlay district? WJ Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Generous: They had multiple plans. Tjomhom: I can't believe... Sacchet: I remember that. I think we, what they put in front of us as a concept was 18 units, not cutting into the tree line ... because that's what I recall. Or at least that's what we asked for. There was one proposal where, I think that's the ultimately the recommendation we gave them. Lillehaug: This looks familiar. Generous: Yeah, this is the one that the applicant provided me. They were just for discussion purposes. They were looking at this concept. And as you can see, it backs into there. The direction was, you know townhouses may be okay but it looks like there's too many units on that and I don't know if you went any farther into looking at the primary zone boundaries. Sacchet: Certainly the guidance we gave them at the time was that we wanted to not cut into the northern tree line. I recall that very clearly. Tjomhom: Okay. Also, are these rental townhouses or are they just townhouses that will be sold? Generous: It's my understanding they're for sale. Tjomhom: Okay. And how does this fit into the metropolitan, or the Met Council's comprehensive plan for our city? Generous: It provides an alternate housing type. Tjomhom: Alright. Generous: So from that standpoint it's good. It's also at a density that's good for us under the low density. We'd like to push it up closer to the 4 units per acre and so at 3.18, it would be better. Tjomhom: And in the discussion of maybe changing things around in the development and putting the pond, or the stormwater pond into the zone, the creek area. Is that correct? Is that what I was hearing? Do they over spill? I mean I keep thinking you know, this is like a pretty important part of the bluff, and are they going to overflow? Could it happen where there's a rain and it fills up and then all the fertilizer from the yards and all the whatever runs into that bluff. Or no? Saam: I mean potentially I guess anything could happen if you get a serious flood but the ponds are sized for hundred year floods, which are fairly rare, so. Plus it will have an outlet pipe, so I guess we don't typically see them overflow. 33 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Slagle: You could talk to St. Michael though. Saam: Yeah, and Red River Valley. Those type of things can happen but. Sacchet: Just to clarify Bethany. Are you referring to the storm water pond or the Bluff Creek setback? Tjornhom: Maybe I wasn't hearing things correctly but I thought that the units could be shifted and that you could then have the storm water pond in that area. Is that what I heard? Sacchet: Yeah, okay. Generous: That was one of the alternatives. Feik: For just a moment bear with me. Assuming this moved forward tonight and passed, they ultimately have to come in for final plat, which we would not see. Generous: Correct. That goes to council. Feik: Thank you. Which could be very different from what we've got, if we have to eliminate 3 units, move roads, move structures. That's it, thanks. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Just one quick one. Relative to the Bluff Creek Overlay District, removal, replacement proposal of the applicant, which I understand you are opposed to. Has the city forester given you any guidance as to the suitability of the area proposed? The 4,700 square feet that's proposed for replacement as to how feasible it would be to revegetate that? Did you get any input on that or are you just rejecting that out of hand? Generous: She's supportive of the idea. She didn't directly comment on this proposal, but very similar to our overall Bluff Creek plan that talks about re-establishing vegetation in the corridor, especially on farm properties. Papke: Thank you Bob. Sacchet: Any questions Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. Has the applicant discussed the price point for these units at this point? Generous: I did discuss it earlier today. Their base price would be approximately $300,000 per unit. 34 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Okay. I guess most everything else has been touched on with the exception of some of these recommendations by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. Didn't see any comments with respect to staff's comments regarding it. It's on their letter to yourself. One of the last paragraphs where they're recommending a two cell basin in lieu of a single cell basin. Can you comment on that at all? Generous: Well I did ask Lori Haak, our Water Resource Coordinator. She said that she didn't believe it was necessary. This pond would drain eventually to that regional pond, and so you get the same benefit. Claybaugh: Okay. And then direct this question to Matt. If in fact the NURP pond was moved out to the north end in lieu of the south location that it's at currently, and those units were shifted back, do you have any concerns about the radius of that turn? If that road had to be reconfigured. Saam: I guess I'll say without seeing a proposal I don't have any concerns. I'm assuming they would submit something that abides by code. Sacchet: Is that it? Claybaugh: I think that's all my questions Sacchet: Yeah, I've got 3 quick questions. First, the primary and secondary boundaries. On the subject property's east boundary, that seemed to kind of make a jig. All of a sudden it's, and I know what it is. Is it 20 feet or 30 feet, they all of a sudden are further down. Why do we have this C type of phenomena happening there with those boundaries? That seems a little awkward. It kind of takes away from the credibility of those boundaries. Generous: I believe they're relying on our base, the city map. The GIS map which started out at that point. We would suggest that the primary zone boundary is a tree edge on the property to the east also, so then that line would be contiguous. Sacchet: And then in addition, if we look, there is actually a couple of the units are drawn on the Arboretum Village. That are immediately adjacent. They seem to certainly come all the way to, and also under the secondary, do they touch on the primary or is that just the lot size? Do you see what I'm referring to? Generous: Oh yes, and I think it's because they picked up the line off the map as opposed to the actual physical conditions. Sacchet: Just to be really clear, those squares are the lot sizes of those units. The units are sitting to the road side? They don't, I mean where would the unit be sitting on those? Generous: It would be within the lot line there but they don't have the specific building pad. 35 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Sacchet: So potentially the building could be touching into the secondary but definitely not into the primary? Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay. That's my first question. My second question, there is this rather significant retaining wall proposed to the east of this development. It actually says 9 foot height, which seems very high, so I'm a little bit perplexed because the territory there seems relatively flat. I mean not totally flat but being from Switzerland this is definitely flat. And all of a sudden we have a 9 foot retaining wall. And I look at this and I kind of wonder, are they planning to make these walkout, lookout units and just fill the dirt in between so that it's a level up and then put a retaining wall at the end. It seems a little crude. But it kind of looks like that. Do you have any enlightening wisdom on that please? Generous: I'd defer to our engineer. Sacchet: Or our engineering, abight. Matt. Saam: You basically got it right Chairman Sacchet. They're raising the grade on that east side there significantly to get the walkouts on both sides of the street. Sacchet: And where's that dirt coming from? Saam: I'm assuming, I haven't checked this with the applicant, but I'm assuming they're pulling some dirt, probably not for the road bed but from the pond area. They're going to be excavating out there. Maybe that will be used for berming or around the retaining wall. But they may indeed be trucking some in. That hasn't been determined yet. Sacchet: And then we have this road stubbing literally feet away from, few feet away from that retaining wall. Is that acceptable? Saam: We'll require barricades to be put up there but. It's not the best situation, no. Sacchet: It'd make an excellent ski jump if you put a ramp up there. Anyhow it's, I'm getting carried away. My third question, condition number 4 of the preliminary plat says the final plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to West 78`" Street. What are we talking about in that case? Generous: As part of the Arboretum Village development, they did have an Outlot J that they preserved there, or that was here as part of their property. And then Outlot G was the property that was dedicated to the city. These are excess properties. The developer couldn't use them and so he's willing to sell Outlot J to the developer and the city really doesn't need this portion so we're working on an agreement. 36 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Okay, that answers it. Thank you very much Bob. That's the questions. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and see what you can add to all this wonderful story. Please state your name and address for the record. Todd Simning: Todd Simning, Greenwood, Minnesota. Plowshares Development. Are your eyes glossed over yet? I think mine are. Sacchet: Not totally. Todd Simning: Not totally? I guess I'll start with the couple easy items first. Just in reference to the trail system. Whether it would actually go down into the trees or not. The biggest reason it was decided not to put a trail system through there was strictly on the advice of when we were working with staff. 41 is actually going to be improved at some point and there's most likely going to be a trail connection along side 41 going down to the existing trail to the north, so at the time we just left it out of there. Secondly in reference to the street coming off Century Boulevard. We actually looked at it at one point in time, but what ended up happening was, it was too close to the comer of the radius of West 78th Street and Century Trail, and so it was kind of eliminated as a possibility to actually put that road through there, so we actually did look at that at one time. Also in reference to the pond, and this will go into a bigger story as it unfolds, but in reference to the pond being, taking our water off site, we did check with MnDot and they shot us down completely. They were already taking Pulte's water on and they really wanted to preserve that for themselves and were not interested in working with us to allow our water to go there so that was one of the other reasons why we ended up with a pond on our side over here. Just as a clarification, and I guess it might be something that we need to discuss with yourselves as well as staff. We were under the assumption that the variance would be 25 feet and not 20 feet, and that we couldn't grade within the last 15 feet of it, versus the last 10 feet of it. So we were gaining 5 feet on a variance addition but we had to stay further away from the primary because you guys had 10 feet and we thought we had to be 15 feet from the primary zone. So that was just more of a clarification for our conversations with staff and maybe Bob can shed some light on that. Okay, so let me start from the beginning of coming out here in August or September with you guys. You know we had went through many different designs of this overall plan and I had actually brought one to you guys that showed 24, well I had 32 lots. I had 28 lots and I had 24 lots. And you guys laughed at me and said don't bring the 32. Don't bring the 28 and so we put the 24 out, and one of the ideas that you guys had was mainly that you know what, we'll support townhouses there but 24 probably looks like it's too many. At the time that was disappointing but yet on the same token we went back to staff to try to work through getting your ideas and trying to work through a good plan with them. In the midst of trying to figure out all this, and what we wanted to accomplish and we met with Bob on many different occasions. Before we went through this plan that you guys see right now, we had actually came up with an idea via Bob, and it had to do with the ponding on the north side. And we actually eliminated that on our own accord as a viable option and I'm going to pass around a detail here that will kind of help explain why we ended up deleting that as one of our options. The plan that you guys have in front of us still has 18 units on it, but it does show that the pond can fit and is allowable 37 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 on the north side over there. Bob and ourselves had actually talked about possibly putting it towards the east side, and what ended up happening was that we ended up putting it on the west side as an option when we looked at it for a couple different reasons. It made more sense just strictly because, from an engineering point of view, the overflow of the storm water would actually go down the ditch over here instead of if it was on the east side here, the overflow would actually go down over the, through the woods and then down over the trail and eventually make it into the wetlands. We didn't think that was a great option just strictly because you know I know it's engineered to 100 year flood event, but you just never know anymore. So we wanted to go ahead and put it on the west side over here because then it would actually go right down the ditch line on 41 and not really end up going over the tree line and into the wetlands down there over the trail. In doing this type of concept, whether we were on the west side here as a pond or on the east side, if we were able, or if we were actually going to do that, which we definitely could do and we could present to you guys, we would lose an additional, roughly 20 to 25 trees no matter where we ended up putting the pond there. To us it made sense to try to put the pond up here towards the south side, and go ahead and try to save as much tree canopy as we possibly could. Our price point of our units are going to be in the $300,000 to $400,000 range. This is a very unique site but it really offers us a lot of natural amenities that we, as well as yourselves want to try to protect. And so using that and wanting to keep the tree line and knowing that those would be our most valuable units back there, we eliminated it as a possibility of going in here and showing the pond. Tearing out another 20 trees and you know having to sell that and open it up and you'd see 41 a little bit more, and we didn't really want to have that happen. The other thing that it allows us to do if we don't put the pond down there in the north side, and we leave it up here towards the south side, yes. I am asking that we be able to encroach on the tree line just slightly. We will go ahead and revegetate with nice vegetation, trees, that sort of thing. But it will also allow us the opportunity to get a little nicer buffer along West 78`s Street, instead of having the units being at the minimum 50 foot setback far up and close to West 78'h Street, we can at least have some sort of happy medium in there to say okay, if we had to have the best of everything, obviously we wouldn't be encroaching the trees and we'd be as far away from West 78d' Street as possible, but in order to make everything work out, if in fact we can put the pond here to the south, move it just slightly into the trees, it made more sense to us. And so that's why we came here today. I know you guys have a lot of questions, or had a lot of questions on it but that's why we came today with the outline that we had. There's been a lot of conversations with staff and ourselves. I don't know. We just wanted to really save more of the tree line as possible. If in fact you guys wanted to see that the pond is on the north side, we can definitely do that. We're not opposed to it. We're willing to work with staff on that and work with the Planning Commission on that but that's the reasoning why we came with what we had today. Couple other small notes I guess. Let's see. On page 20 of 20, which is number 8 and there's a lot of conditions which is a little bit confusing to ourselves too. But it specifically states in there that sprinkler systems on homes, it has to be for all the units. All of our units actually don't meet the 8,500 square foot minimum. Our two unit buildings don't, and I just wanted to make a clarification on that also for staff maybe to note that we understand that our 3 unit buildings are over 8,500 gross square feet so they would have to be sprinkled. But the 2 unit buildings actually don't, gosh what do you �i3 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 call it? Don't require it. However, having said that, if we do choose to sprinkle all of our units, we'd also want it noted that we actually are not required to have a hammerhead in the street system then. So that little turn around, which is right here, this little thing right here for fire trucks to get in and what not, we could possibly eliminate that if in fact we did sprinkle all our units, so I just wanted to clarify that on that item. In our opinion, I hope you guys feel the same way but in our opinion we feel that the proposed layout is actually a much better proposal than what we possibly could have come with and been within the rules and the guidelines of the city ordinances and city codes. We're very excited about the overall project. I hope you guys are too. We're looking forward to building a unique development in Chanhassen. We created one, Marsh Glen right over off of 101 and West 86th Street, which again was a.very sensitive area, just strictly because of the wetlands areas behind. We worked hard with the city staff to create an easement along there and save as many trees as possible. We finished all our houses are done. Homeowners are in there and it really turned out great so if I can encourage you guys just to go through there and see what we are as a developer and a builder, that might give you a better feeling of what we feel is a good neighborhood and how we like to save trees and save the natural environment around us. And I'm open to any questions you guys might have. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant. You're nodding Rich. Slagle: I can start if you want. Just a few. Can you tell me, excuse me, what would be your target audience? Who do you see living here, assuming this goes through. Todd Simning: I see this as a development very similar to our Settlement Ridge, the Pines development over in Eden Prairie. We had two phases over there. We did 34 lots. 32 or, 33 lots on one side of the street and 28 lots on the other side. But it would shock you. It shocked us on what our audience was. We had anything from 27-28 year old fust time homebuyers, through the 30's, the 40's, the 50's and we had some 70 and 80 year old people. We hit all target ranges of ages in there and it just, it really surprised us. We had a lot of single women that actually bought in our developments. I would say probably about 25 percent of our client was single women and they were looking for a smaller development that they could feel safe in, and that's one of the reasons why we, I think we attracted that type of buyer from what they had told us. Slagle: Were there families with kids? Todd Simning: Very few. I think in our first phase out of 33 we had 1, which was the Deans and then on the second side we have 2 out of 28 that actually had any children. Slagle: The reason I'm asking, specifically with the children's issue is, this development is, correct me if I'm wrong staff but a fair distance to any park that we have in the city. In fact the two closest parks would be Lundgren's private parks. So if there are children, and if you remember when we met a few months ago my question was in your center area showing a cul-de-sac or a circle. One of my recommendations would be that you put some type of playground in there. Obviously you haven't followed that and that's okay, 39 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 but I then follow along with the questions earlier about the trails because I do believe you're correct that 41 at some point will result in a trail. I know it's going to connect to the north, to the Longacres area. I don't know what the plan is to go south to West 7e from the trail. Will it continue down to West 78d? Generous: To 82nd Street eventually. Slagle: Okay. My question then, if I can ask is, that being the case, would you be open then as far as your sidewalks go, to extending out to 41 as you come out of your development? If I'm not mistaken the sidewalk is on the south side of West 78'. Todd Simning: It's on the, our sidewalk actually, and I don't think Bob's got this highlighted completely right here. He's got it initially marked here but we also have a sidewalk that does come down to 41, and that's actually on the plan. It's just not highlighted right now. Slagle: Okay. Obviously you've heard sensitivities about the primary line. Can this project proceed if 2 or 3 of your units were eliminated? Todd Simning: Fair question and I know that, I do know that it would be difficult but I guess I couldn't answer. I do know without 3 we're not doing it for sure. Anything less than what we have, it would be, it would be, we can't be over $400,000 on our units. We know what sells. Our units sell between 325 and 390,000 dollars and it doesn't make it a viable project for us to sell these things over $400,000 because we know that that buyer's not there. We've proven it on our other sites. It just doesn't make any sense for us to do anything. Slagle: Okay. And then the last question I have is, it was mentioned earlier regarding the number of conditions that were in the, at least one of the items we were looking at, and again I think echoing what's been shared, that's a lot so my question, and Mr. Chair I hope I'm not being premature by asking this but would you be opposed to, if there was a motion to table this until some of those things get resolved. Todd Simning: Yes, we would be open to that. On there it seemed, at least I thought that a lot of those conditions on there were redundant to what is normal operating procedures on a development, so I actually thought it was kind of strange for maybe a different reason than you guys have because we just assumed that those things are happening, and typically on our conditions we see things that are out of the ordinary that aren't typical so. Slagle: Fair enough. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Questions from the applicant. Feik: You said the price point is roughly 300-3'%. What's the square footage of the units Finished square footage. 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Todd Simning: 2,700 square feet, up and down. Finished both levels. 1,500 on the main floor, 1,200 on the lower, yep. Feik: And as long as you're standing here, I have a question for the city engineer as it relates to the parcel to the east that you said that we have some sort of an easement over. And this may be a hair brained idea, but within that easement could you put a pond? Could you move the pond east off the lot? It could be an amenity for the neighbors to the east. Would that generally fit within that? Saam: I guess potentially it could be done. Keep in mind again they don't, this applicant doesn't own the property. The City doesn't own it. We have certain rights over it, so whoever owns it, I'm assuming an association owns that. They'd have to negotiate with them in order to be able to do that, but I guess yeah, it could be done. Feik: Just looking at an alternative. Any gut reaction to, knee jerk reaction to that? Todd Simning: I think it would be difficult myself just, and I think Matt's nodding his head up and down too. We thought that this parcel right here we could work with the city and buy it. This over here ended up being more of a kind of given to the city I think more on an open space arena and I think it would be difficult just strictly because you end up having units right next door to it and if it's not your pond, who's going to want a pond sitting there. Feik: Ahight, just curious. Those were my only two questions, thank you. Papke: Continuing on the pond vein here, and let's maybe just try to finish off the last alternative. Putting it where the barn is, I understand, if I understood you correctly, you were concerned about some of the trees that would have to be taken out to put the pond to the north central part of the property where the barn currently is. Is that correct? Todd Simning: Well 20 to 25 trees would be taken out, whether we went to basically where the pond is, or over by the west side. And our concern was mainly with the pond, what I'll call the east side, was just strictly from overflow, any water that does make it down past into the trees and then it goes over the trail and continues onward. That was the main concern there. It was easier to get water out of the pond if it went on the west side. Papke: Right, correct. But if we overlook that at the moment and just look at the practability of putting it where the barn is. If one looks at the trees there, they're elms. They're box elders. They're not the more significant trees on the property. If you know we looked at taking some of those out and locating the pond in the central area there, would that, is that feasible from your perspective as a developer and the grading. Are there any other barriers to locating the pond there... 41 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Todd Simning: If I may, I just need to converse with Ed Hasek with Westwood Engineering here. Papke: Sure. While they're conferring. I walked the property last weekend a little bit. I didn't actually go on the property but observed it from a distance and if you look at that barn area, it's not, there's big brush piles and so on. I mean it's not, it's the kind of area that if you could use that square footage for a pond, it might not be a bad alternative. Ed Hasek: I believe that you have a copy of this. I'm hoping you did. A color copy of this that was submitted to the city. Are we on the screen? Right, excellent... vegetation in this area. The city doesn't differentiate between box elder. Significant tree is simply is a tree that... Papke: And I disagree with the city on that regard. Ed Hasek: ...but we have the ordinances to deal with I guess. My name is Ed Hasek. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. I'm a registered landscape architect and a planner in the State of Minnesota. I would agree. The vegetation in this area is less quality than perhaps other areas of the site. There's no question about it. That continues all the way across the back of the Pulte parcel as well. Our concern again, simply from the design standpoint was what was going to happen with the water if it overflowed the pond. And if there's a way to work with the city to pipe that underneath and get it into the creek underneath the trail so the trail doesn't wash out, that's an option that we can certainly look at. Personally I think that if we were going to put the pond on the north side, this is probably where it wants to go if it wants to go anywhere. I guess from a design standpoint and from simply the overflow and what makes the most sense from an engineering standpoint, it seemed to us that it should be adjacent to the road so we can use existing infrastructure, ditches. Papke: Just to complete that thought, from the city engineering perspective, if the concern is overflow of the pond, and we're designed for a 100 year storm event, is this something we should be worried about or is this something that we can safely say you know, the likelihood of the pond overflowing is not that great. And if it does overflow, okay. So the trees get a little, the tree roots get wet for a day or two, because there's a pretty substantial slope there. The water's not going to hang there. It's going to flow right down to the marsh. Saam: Exactly. I guess from that perspective if it's sized for the 100 year, I mean we don't look at it outside of that. So if it's sized for the 100 year, we're fine with that. Papke: Okay. No other questions, thank you. Slagle: If I can just add to that. Matt, would not if it was on the northwest corner of the property, and the thought being that it would overflow into the ditch. The ditch is going to nm down into the swamp anyway. 42 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Just takes a different path. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah, I just had a question. On page 4 of 20, the last paragraph under Section 20-501. Intent. Staff states in exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development of plans will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than what would be the case with other more standard zoning districts. Could you respond or explain what you think you bring to the stew in that context? Todd Simning: You want me to stir it up a little bit? Claybaugh: Sure. Todd Simning: I actually think that we do bring a higher quality product to the market place. I think that's exemplified in a couple different ways. Number one, if in fact you go to our developments that we've built, our townhouse developments, the Pines primarily over at Settlers Ridge. When you go through there, we're not the normal builder. Or developer. I mean you see a lot of undulation in land, in landscaping. You'll see significant amounts of large trees that we brought in. You'll see a significant amount of actual landscaping that we've done, which contrast that to say Arboretum Village next door. It's a pretty standard stark looking development. They serve a purpose because they're at a certain price range, and I'm not knocking that but if you contrast that with what we have done in our developments, you'll see a drastic difference in the quality there of just strictly the land itself. Number 2, just with our units themselves, if you do go and take a look at what we've accomplished with our's versus some of the other guys. Lundgren Brothers, that would be in our same price category, that sort of thing. You'll see a definite difference there and I think that's why we've, when we've competed with them in the same developments, which we have in several different occasions, we've outsold them very well just strictly because our units are more attractive than what they had to offer. And then lastly, customer service wise, if you talk to our clients that we, that are living in our developments right now, as well as who we're building with right now, there's a definite difference between ourselves and some of the other guys on the street. We really take care of our clients and that's important to us. Claybaugh: I'm going to try and fine tune that question a little bit. I'm assuming most of those things that you covered are reflected in your price point. I'm speaking more specifically to the context that we have 5 motions in front of us, okay. Regarding to this conditional use permits, land use amendments, what is the benefits specifically to the city? What is the trade off for Chanhassen? Todd Simning: You guys get a nicer product within your city. You feel good about a nice development. You get tax base. That's always important. So if you're looking at, I would think that those would be the two primary items. Besides that, it's going to fill somewhat of a void that there's not a lot of townhouses within the kind of move up 43 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 market where there's quite a few people that live and work around the area that again from single women to retirees to young people that are looking for a higher quality neighborhood to live in, and you guys would attract that as far as Chanhassen goes. You're definitely up and coming as Eden Prairie's filling up and you know it continues to come out and you just see more and more people that are starting to come out here. Claybaugh: That's all I have. Lillehaug: A couple questions for you. This is a real easy one. Why are you cheating yourself out of 5 feet with having a 31 foot road instead of 26 foot road? Todd Simning: You know we have a couple developments right now that we did. Our first Pines project in Eden Prairie, I think we had, god it was pretty narrow. I think it was like 21. 22 foot, and when we did that one there were two, I always try to get better, okay. There were two problems with that. Number one, we had a 22 foot wide street, which was allowable, but we also had smaller driveways. Our second side of the Pines we went to a 24, or 26. It's 24 or 26 and we went to 20 or 22 foot driveways. Construction wise, it makes it a little tough because there's not a lot of places to park. Besides that, as people live there and they're having company, it's really nice to, even though we have nice sized driveways here, there's, it's nice to have some place for your company to park. In this development, I think we're just getting that much better again where we're saying okay, let's give ourselves a 31 foot street. Let's give ourselves some places to park. We have 25 foot driveways on average, and it just provides a nicer element for the people that ultimately live there over time, and that was important to us. We just listened to our customers and that's what they've told us they look for in developments and so that's what we wanted to accomplish. Lillehaug: How about with your wall? I measured, based off the contours, the existing and proposed. It needs to be maybe a 10 to 12 foot wall. Do you have any concerns with that? Even if it's a 9 foot wall. How would you address, you know a rail or a fence on top of it. Do you have any concerns with that? Todd Simning: At the height of it, it is 9 foot and then it tapers down on both sides fairly quickly. We think we can do a nice landscaped barricade type deal to prevent any issues or problems there. We actually have one at the Pines right now, which is in Eden Prairie that is actually larger than this. We do them out of boulder walls. We have our boulder walls engineered so they're not just a flat, ugly looking wall. I mean there's some undulation to it. It's nice looking. It actually incorporates the overall landscaping with the trees. Is more of a natural setting than something that's just so commercial and it goes straight up and down so we've had really good luck with it and haven't had any issues. Lillehaug: Okay. My last comment, or question would be your access off of West 78th Street. If you're traveling east on West 780', you know you have your, you do have your access right at the end of the median. It's not ideal. Looking at having, providing an access off of Century Trail, if that indeed is a city outlot there. Is one of the other m W Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 concerns that you can't get the elevations to tie in with Century Trail? I mean are we totally abandoning the idea of coming off of Century Trail? Todd Simning: We strictly had just because of what we had found out from the city earlier, that when we had to be so far from the comer here and we really didn't have anything to work with when you're considering that you had to be so far up and then all of a sudden you're right next to somebody else's units over here again. It's kind of like the pond. We really felt as though we would probably get enough outcry from neighbors so to speak that we were trying to force something on them, and really we wanted to deal with our own property and that was a better way of going about it. Ullehaug: That's all I have, thanks. Sacchet: One more quick question. To what extent, obviously this is not a new notion that staff is recommending we preserve that northern tree line, and I do believe we also touched on it in our preliminary meeting when we were here, what 3-4 months ago. How doable, or how much effort have you put into looking how this could be accommodated without having to cut into that northern tree line? Todd Simning: Right now because of the setbacks from West 78th Street with our pond, on the south side right there, we can't make that work. Can't do it. Sacchet: So you feel you exhaustively researched that? Todd Simning: The only thing that we could do to get just a little bit further out of it is, is to potentially go down to a 26 foot street, which would bring in another 5 feet out and again hopefully I addressed that. I mean ultimately it's up to you guys whether you want to say that I have good reason or not to do that. Sacchet: But the pond needs to have that size? It couldn't be a little lopsided to bring that side down to... Todd Simning: According to our engineers, that's the size that it needs to have, or be there to accommodate what we have. Sacchet: So you feel you pretty exhaustively looked at that Todd Simning: For the layout that we have here, I think that we have exhausted what we could possibly do. The only thing that could happen is if you guys said that no, we really want that pond on the north side. Then basically I would say hey table me, and give me that direction and we'll go back and we'll redesign the plan to show that. We just didn't feel as though that was a great alternative. Sacchet: Well yeah, well we can touch on that in comments a little more. Thank you. 45 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Lillehaug: One other quick question if I could. Staff addressed your sanitary line, trying to keep that out of the normal water level. Paralleling the pond on the south there. Do you feel that where it's at, it's out of the normal water, or it's above that water line? And my concern is, we try to push that north, we're getting too close to the houses and structures with that line. Todd Simning: You just went right over my head. Ed, do you? Ed Hasek: Could you ask the question again? Lillehaug: Staff, in their report indicated that they would like to verify or to ensure that the sanitary line that parallels the pond, north of the pond, south of the houses, that it's, I'm not paraphrasing here but I think it's ideal to have it out from underneath the normal water level of the pond. My question is, is it right now? Ed Hasek: I believe it currently is right on the edge and it can be moved and we understand, that's a very good comment by staff but that can be accommodated. I'd like to address just, there were some comments about, earlier about the elevation of the road and some of the things that were going on and I'd like to go through that really quickly with you. Really what's happening with this site is the pond elevation and the need to store water in that pond, the outlet elevation that we have on that is setting the elevation of all of the structures on this site. We have 4, 5, or 6 steps in the garage going into the units. We kept the garages as low as possible. Pushed the units up as far as possible to make this whole thing work, so the elevation is really being set by the water elevation in the pond that's on the north side of the property right now. Just so you understand why things are as high as they are. One other reason why there was some comment about the elevation of the wall. Personally when I put this thing together and designed it to start with, I had the end of the road higher than the wall and the engineering staff at Westwood said no, we're not going to do that. We've had problems with that in the past. The wall has to be higher than the end of the road because we don't want any water running to the back of the wall, especially if it's going to be a boulder wall. So that kind of sets the elevation. The pond sets the elevation of the units. The units set the elevation of the road. The road sets the elevation of the wall. It's kind of how it goes so. Sacchet: While we're at it. You would have to import dirt to build it up that high wouldn't you? Ed Hasek: I haven't gone through a complete analysis. I believe that our first go around we thought we were about 10,000 square yards short. That's not a lot of dirt for a site like this. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair I had a question. Sacchet: Go ahead. M Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: You commented on the touch down points for the existing plan that you have before us. Could you comment on how it would affect the elevations of those touch down points if the retention pond was put on the north side? Ed Hasek: I think we could lower the site slightly. Not substantially but slightly. It may go down 2 or 3 feet. The road elevation. Claybaugh: That's substantial. Ed Hasek: Yes. On this site it could potentially be substantial. The other thing that it might offer us is the opportunity to reduce the number of stairs in a garage. Claybaugh: Right. Ed Hasek: But that would mean we'd have to keep the road up in order to do that. The garage floor has to go up. Therefore the road has to stay up because we can't. Claybaugh: What kind of elevation do you have on your garage floor over your road elevation? Ed Hasek: I don't know off hand. I think it must be a foot and a half roughly. It's not even that I don't think. Claybaugh: That's the extent of my comments. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, thank you very much Todd Simning: Thank you. Sacchet This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to comment on this item, this is your chance to come forward and tell us what you want to say to us. Please state your name and address for the record please. Mike Ryan: Yes, hi. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mike Ryan, 2595 Southern Court and seeing this proposal, it does seem like these guys are going to great efforts in many ways so it looks like a fine project. However, for many of you who know me, I was very involved with the Pulte project and I had a lot of concerns about that and using some of the terms tonight here, that there is I think a need for some consistency with respect to the comp plan and where we work closely with the Pulte project and that, everything north of 781s Street was on the comp plan, or is on the comp plan, is designed for low density. And in this case I understand that they're requesting that to be medium density. And the council at that time did recognize that everything north should be in that low density requirement. This project is, it is known as, or being defined as the Highlands which is, I believe that's part of the head waters if you will of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and I do have issue as a resident of Chanhassen about that variance requesting, going from 40 to 20, and really would like the city and the council here to 47 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 take a good strong look at that. But most importantly is the old growth tree forest there. I think with the Pulte project, as well as with the Lundgren project there was a lot of effort to try to maintain that old growth forest and, I'm not trying to sound as somebody who's into trees and so forth, but I think that, and certainly in Chanhassen there is very few forests and I hate to see, and I think this is where one of the units, if I may. Down here in 9, 10 and 11, and I realize that's not in the primary corridor but it's, I know it's a very healthy tree structure and I don't know if there's anything that the council here can take a look at with respect to that. So I guess in summary I just wanted to make those comments and I don't know if there is any clarity as to exactly or to communicate this but how much of a percent of the trees be it in the primary and the secondary as well as even beyond that corridor, is going to be lost. So I don't know if staff knows that or if anybody could speak to that. Sacchet: You want to quickly touch on that Bob? Since it is part of the development. Generous: Well I'd like to start with the consistency with the comp plan first. This development is considered low density. The only reason the land use amendment is in place is because our PUD ordinance doesn't permit the clustering of housing, so it's actually less dense than Pulte's project north of West 78`h Street. That came in at 3.5 units per acre. This is 3.18 so it's less dense than that. ...setback, that's a question. Old growth forest. Jill did a calculation and I worked on this earlier today. Let's see if I can remember. They're removing approximately, what is it? 27 percent. 33 percent of the existing canopy coverage on this site as part of the overall project. The percent that's in the primary zone, we'd like to get it to zero. Right now they have about 4,000 square feet of area. The total tree removal is just under an acre. It's .9 acres so they're doing a lot. One of their previous plans actually preserved this old growth trees but in exchange they were cutting into the trees up there so it is a balance on the site. Which area do we want to preserve more? I must commend them for their plan. They have preserved some of those trees along Highway 41 corridor and in the future if they can work it out as part of the final construction plans, they would save additional trees because it only adds value to their project and it's less trees that they potentially have to plant on this site. Mike Ryan: Okay, so what is the percentage of complete loss of trees? Sacchet: Well according to the staff report the baseline currently has 42 percent cover and the proposed tree preservation would go down to 28 percent. Mike Ryan: So is that 50 percent of the 42? Sacchet: It's gone from 2.75 acres down to 1.84 acres. And the applicant actually made, I've never seen an applicant that made such a diligent effort with actually inventorying. They also did it in terms of the total number of trees. The significant ones that we inventoried go from 106, if I read that correctly, and 27 would be lost by that calculation, or it'd be 25 percent of them in terms of numbers. In terms of the size of the trees, it's a little more dramatic. It goes down from roughly 2,000 inches and close to 800 are ER� Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 removed, so it's probably in the 40 percent range in terms of the size of the trees. And I'll have some comments about that later on. Mike Ryan: And I'm not trying to, like Pulte where we're not objecting to the Pulte project but what we're just looking for again is consistency and this does, I do mean this. It does seem like a reasonable project. One thing, and this is probably more editorial, is that it, I learned a lot with the Pulte project but it always amazes me how these developers come in here and all of a sudden it's, how it ends up being everybody else's problem versus their's and as one being in business, usually you know the lay of the land. You know what you're working with and you know your price points and so forth, but you guys certainly see this much more than I do in this process but at any rate. Not trying to throw a wrench in it. It's just ... it could be any extent or great efforts to try to keep the old growth, I think everybody would be appreciative of that. Sacchet: Thanks. Appreciate your comments. Anybody else wants to comment about this? Susan McAllister: I'm Susan McAllister. I'm one of the parties that's involved with this. It's my property. The old growth trees are very much on their way to their death bed because it's a high parcel and they basically, not all of them but most of them have been hit by lightning and so I just wanted to make that clear. I do have some photographs of some of them. And my number two point is that I used to walk in the Longacres forest a long time ago, before they developed it so yeah, there has been a lot of trees taken out of that site too. I guess I would, I don't know where you're going to go with it tonight but I'd like to see it a little clearer and I wouldn't oppose you know to table it if you thought it wasn't clear enough right now so that's all I have to say. Sacchet: Thank you Susan. Anybody else want to comment on this while we have a public hearing? This is your chance. Nope? Alright. I'll close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to commissioners. Comments, discussion. We sprinkled in some things that bordered on comments already. How about we start on this side. We started mostly on this side so far. Claybaugh: Yeah, with respect to comments, I would like to see the NURP pond moved to the north side in the existing barn location. I think in the final analysis, whether there's an overflow in there or not, which is highly unlikely, it's still going to end up in Bluff Creek. It's just going to take a different path to get there. With that, and I'd like to see the properties moved out of the primary zone and I think that would enable them to adjust that elevation. Get the retaining wall down. Eliminate some of those steps that they've identified from the garage to the main structure. I think there's a number of positive benefits by doing that so to summarize I'd like to table tonight and that would be the direction that I would provide them with. Sacchet: Just to clarify what you're envisioning Craig. Is the pond where the barn is, meaning still keeping that tree line intact around there to the north? M Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Still keeping that tree line intact as much as possible, but I think that those were of lesser quality trees in that area. It doesn't mean that to be, it wouldn't be some impact obviously but the lesser of two evils. Sacchet: Thanks. Papke: Yeah, just to expound on that. I agree 100 percent. I think if we, if you look at the trade off's here, and again I understand you want to obey the letter of the law here and do canopy coverage and everything. But also touching on some of the resident comments on the old growth woods. The current proposal to do the, to chop out the, or remove the current overlay district involves removing some 25 inch diameter maples, which you know would break my heart. On the other hand, putting the pond where the barn is might involve removing some box elders and some elm trees, which as the property owner states, are probably not long lived anyway. So for myself, I would be very amenable to arguments from the applicant to removing some of the elm trees and box elder trees which are low quality in the barn area there, and trying to find some way of moving the pond in there and keeping the primary district line where it is. I think that could be a win/win scenario. Granted the applicant also voiced some concern that having the NURP pond along West 78th Street allows you to set those homes back away from 78th Street. I think in this particular situation, if you really want to stay at your currently building count, that might be the only viable solution to move the pond towards the back. Move the homes a little bit closer to the street and having that be the trade off. So that's all I have, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Feik: I agree with what's been said thus far. I would agree with tabling it for an additional reason in that I think given the number of conditions that we've got here, if we were to move this forward, I don't think it would look much like what we're looking at today. To try to conform with all those conditions so I would not be comfortable with moving forward with this based upon the scope of the conditions. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Bethany. Tjomhom: Not to be redundant I agree with everything that's been said so far. But I do want to say that I think it's a nice development so I hope it works out. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Rich. Slagle: A couple things. It is a great development. I'll even go as far to say great. I will throw out a thought and again fellow commissioners know I have an interest in trails and sidewalks. I will re-emphasize again to the applicant and to staff, I do think there's some merit to having a path go through the woods to connect to the trail. I think that would be a selling point to a perspective owners, but I think more importantly is, as we will see later, justification for either having sidewalks or not having sidewalks in different communities. We have a site that's going to be presented to us. One of the rationale if I U11 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 remember right is connecting to trails. And if this was a neighborhood of single family homes, I would tend to think that the park and rec group as well as staff might be more open if you will to connecting to that trail. So I only throw that out. I would be pleased to see that. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: Couple comments. I'm not opposed to a 26 foot wide street. I'm not going to reiterate things here. I'm just going to add to it. I'm not opposed to a 26 foot wide street so that is a point I think we should look at. The walk that parallels 78'h Street that is proposed. I think it's proposed as a 6 foot. I'd like staff to work with the applicant. Are we okay with a 6 foot walk or do we want to match the 8 or 10 foot trail that is on the south side of the road? I'm not opposed to either way. I just want to make sure that we get what we want there. One other thing here, and I want to discuss this with fellow commissioners. Looking at their alternative plan that was handed to us, where it pushed the houses to the south, it still looks like we, you know if we look at that plan they have 20 feet from the primary zone. City still requires 40 feet, correct? Generous: That's what the ordinance says. Lillehaug: Yeah. So we're still looking at a variance here and I want to make sure everyone's aware of that. I guess. Slagle: If I can, would that variance fall in line with what staff is suggesting? I think it does. Lillehaug: It does. And then my question, I want to throw it out there is, I mean I liked it but why are we deviating from 40 feet and allowing 20 feet, and I don't, does someone have that answer for me? Because I don't. Sacchet: Well part of it, the way I understand it's a trade off. I mean we're preserving the northern, what is it? Third or what of the property in it's natural state. And as a tool to get to that end we have the PUD and yes, we have to put it into the medium density context because in the low density we can't do this clustering thing. So by doing the clustering, concentrating the density by taking it out totally out of that primary zone. I mean that's the benefit we're getting. Lillehaug: So can a development come in there, a single family and go into that primary zone and put a house? I'm just saying, why aren't we hold to 40 feet here? What is the trade off because I guess I'm, I want to understand and see it because I'm not seeing what the trade off is here. What development could come in there and go into that primary zone? Is there one? Generous: It hasn't been tested yet. 51 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Sacchet: We were fortunate in that we work consistently with people that were willing to work that trade off. So the question is then where do we make the delineation? How far do we go with what we're trading off? It's a give and take. I mean it's every case. Generous: Mr. Chairman, Lillehaug. Commissioner Lillehaug. The other thing is if you use that starting point of the 18 units, the twin home project, they potentially could have gone with 5-6 unit structures and been able to meet the setbacks. But then we wouldn't have had the consistency of development with the Pulte project that we directed them to try to accomplish using the 2 and 3 unit structures. So that would be another trade off or reason that we're looking at making this work. Lillehaug: I'm not totally sold on it but I'm just throwing it out there. I mean it's a great development. I'm just trying to justify reducing it from 40 feet to 20 feet, which is 50 percent. Claybaugh: Is it a given that we have to settle for the 20 feet? I mean we haven't seen this reconfigured. Generous: Right. Claybaugh: I would like to see it more mitigated as much as possible and not necessarily just hold on 20. I think that the potential is there and I think the number of units that are going to encroach on that are going to be mitigated as well. Sacchet: Yeah, and part of our role is to lean on the city's interest side with these type of things. Claybaugh: I mean once it's reconfigured I think we can all take a look at it and evaluate for ourselves if they've done due diligence and mitigate it to the degree that we feel that they can. Whether that ends up being 20 feet, 10 feet, we'll be able to see that when the plan's reconfigured. Lillehaug: I guess that would probably end my comments and I think Commissioner Claybaugh kind of summed that up for me. If the applicant comes back and shows that they're doing the best they can, I think. I'm not saying I would or wouldn't support 20 but I think if they come back and shows us. Slagle: Just one quick add on. If we do, as a consensus decide to table, certainly I would hope and expect that staff will minimize, reduce the number of conditions. Sacchet: Right. Ed Hasek: Point of clarification? Sacchet: Yes. Go ahead. Point of clarification. 52 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 20W Ed Hasek: Yes, you had, there'd been one request to try and look at a path through the woods down to the trail. Are we talking about a handicap accessible trail? Because there's a big difference between just a trail. Slagle: Sure, and I think that's a fair question and quite honestly I think staff, whether it's Matt or Todd Hoffman's group, you know. I just think it makes sense. Ed Hasek: Okay, if we can work with staff, that's fine. That's clarification. Slagle: I hope you do. Sacchet: A couple, are we done Steve? Lillehaug: Well I guess I'm sitting real close to him but I don't totally agree with putting a trail through the woods there. I think I would go with the applicant and say going out to 41 is adequate in my mind. Sacchet: Appreciate your point that out. That we're not necessarily unanimous on that one. From my end, I guess everybody else, did you have a chance? Yes? Then it's my turn. There are decidedly too many conditions. I mean this thing is not solid enough from that angle and especially some of the conditions where you have potentially very fundamental impact. I mean if we say they cannot cut into the primary zone, all the discussion we had here, well where would the pond go? Do they lose units? Would the street be more narrow? And I think that's fundamental enough that tabling is the appropriate thing to do. Now in terms of the framework of this, it's an excellent project. I mean you guys have really worked very hard. It shows. It's quality. And I believe that within that framework it's just going to get better. When you came in with the concept, it was in September was when it was, I think we actually, I might be wrong. I mean my memory sometimes gets a little murky but the way I recall it is we looked at this and then we thought that 18 units was probably going to be the balance so I don't have a problem with 18 units per se, but I also think that we made it relatively clear at that time that we wanted to preserve the northern tree line. So coming from that angle, I think what we actually discussed at that time is very much in line with what we're presenting here, also with what staff is recommending. Now, you made a point, you being the applicant, that you pretty exhaustively looked possibilities. Obviously you'd like to do it the way you have it here, but I think it'd be reasonable to look at the possibility that was suggesting in the pond where the barn is because indeed there are not that significant trees there. If you have to cut a little bit into the tree line, that's not going to be nearly as significant as where you're cutting into it now, and I do want to make a comment or maybe a compliment to your tree inventory. I mean this is fantastic. And it shows that you're cutting less than half the trees in terms of the ones you surveyed. But then you're looking at in terns of the caliper inches, if you add up the size of the trees, you do cut almost half. Little less than half so there we have a little different thing, and I do understand some of these trees are old. Some of them are not in the best shape. Some of them have been hit by lightning and what have you. However, just to balance that scale a little bit, and since I'm the person here on this group that pays attention to trees, looking. If you 53 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 look at the real significant trees, if you define real significant being 24 inches or more, there are 26 of them. And you're cutting 11 so there you're about a third. Closer to half. Kind of inbetween there. If you look at the real big ones, 30 inches and above, there are actually 11 trees there that are 30 inches or bigger. We're talking really old growth and I share the concern that the resident comment brought up. Out of those 11 trees, you're actually cutting 5. Cutting half of those. So if you look at that, the bigger the tree the more you're cutting. If you look at it in a different way and that came too in our discussion is what kind of trees it is. Because there's a difference in terms of value of box elder and an oak or a maple. If you look at maples, it's a little bit disappointing. You have about 24 maples that were surveyed. You're cutting 16. Cutting two-thirds of them. Oaks, you have surveyed 7. You're cutting 3. Again, just slightly less than half, so when we look at the real significant trees, I would conclude you're cutting a significant amount because they're standing where you're building. And some of them actually stand where you're cutting into the primary zone. I don't think there's much we can do about that so I'm not trying to make a case. Usually I try to find some trees and say well here's a good tree, why don't you save it. The only thing I can say, there's a couple where you're cutting in the primary zone. However, where this has weight and significance in terms of our discussion here tonight is that it gives, in my opinion additional impetus to preserve the primary land more significantly. Because we do take a lot of the significant trees out. So that is something I'd like to see also considered as we move this forward. I do support tabling this. I still feel a little awkward about this retaining wall. It seems, but I understand, appreciate your explaining with the ponding and all, how that plays together so that makes a little more sense. And again, this going to medium density per se in terms of how we're talking about it, is our lever to actually preserve the sense, the natural sensitive area. To have that trade off. To get to the clustering. Obviously it has to go somewhere to keep the balance of the development. That's my comments with that. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair, I have another comment I'd like to make. Sacchet: Yes, please go ahead Craig. Claybaugh: I was just looking and talking with my fellow commissioner here. The applicant had touched on the possibility of sprinkling all the units and if code supports it eliminating that hammerhead turn around. I'd like to at least point that out to possibly justifying those units a little further to the east if that hammerhead was taken out would help mitigate some of that exposure that you have in the primary setback area. And also possibly take a look at unit number 9 and possibly eliminating one of those units and justifying unit 7 and 8. Swinging that building around with two 2 unit buildings. Just between relocating the NURP pond and possibly justifying units 1 to 3 a little more to the east and eliminating unit number 9 and swinging 7 and 8 over, you're out one unit but I think you've gone a long ways towards mitigating almost all of the encroachment. That's all the comments I have. Sacchet: Thank you Craig. I'd like to have a motion please. 54 Planning Commission Meeting — January 6, 2004 Feik: I'll make a motion. I move that we table the application in it's entirety for Plowshares Development and Susan McAllister for 2930 West 78`s Street. Sacchet: Got a motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: Second. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for Highlands of Bluff Creek, Plowshares Development at 2930 West 7e Street in it's entirety. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Sacchet: How about we take a 5 minute recess just to stretch. So we reconvene by 10:15. PUBLIC HEARING: Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions of staff. Papke: Yeah, I've got a clarification question. Is there any issue? The language here is all lots of record in existence and parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a building has been constructed. Is there any issue with the term building here? I mean if I have an outhouse on this property, do I get grandfathered in the way this is worded? Generous: For that outhouse, yeah unless we wanted, yes. Unless you say principal building. Principal structure. Papke: That's my only question. Is this sufficiently unambiguous that we're not going to run into problems with interpretation later on? If it's a tree house or whatever, you know. I mean does that constitute a developed property if I've got a tree house on my, you know. Generous: That would seem'as it says building. Now a principal building or principal structure may be a more accurate term because you have to have a principal structure before you can have accessory structures, etc. Papke: There you go. Generous: So that's a way to do it. Sacchet: So it would say principal structure that would. 55 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 19, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for PUD 2003-3, located at 2930 West 78`h Street, Applicant Plowshares Development LLC and Susan McAllister - Planning Case No. 04-01, to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. K n J. En��#dt, De ty Clerk Subscribed and swom to befor me this (9+h day of r f 20(y3' t �z 0 civ Notary Publ gAeng\fonns\affidavit. doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Highlands of Bluff Creek APPLICANT: Plowshares Development, LLC Planned Unit Development Susan McAllister PLANNING CASE #04-01 (aka 2003-3) LOCATION: 2930 West 78`" Street NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Plowshares Development, LLP/Susan McAllister, is requesting a Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18 -unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback Requirements on 6 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. The property is located at 2930 West 78'" Street (northeast corner of West 78'" Street and Highway 41). What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and 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 Generous at 952-227-1131 or e-mail bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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 December 25, 2003. City Review Procedure Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. Staff prepares a report on the subject application. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. - . MOM p b I/ 51 �' �6nrnG YF ALFONSO & CHRISTINE M CORREA ALLAN D FISCHER ALLEN K JR & JENNIFER R LARSON 2828 CENTURY TRL 7641 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL 7647 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 ALLEN M ODEGARD 2841 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 AMY E FISHER 2836 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 ARBORETUM VILLAGE COMMUNITY BARBARA ANN MILLER SUITE NORTHWEST PKY MN 55121- 7661 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN EAGAN M SUICHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 BRENDA C BROWN 7634 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 BRYAN M FRITZ 2838 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 DALE C & KIM R HOWELL 7644 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 DAVID L BUSS & ERIN KAY STEINKE 7638 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 GARY & JENNIFER SANDQUIST 7711 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 HREIDAR & ELINOR A AGUSTSSON 2836 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 BRIAN K MOE 7700 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 BYRON A & MARY M OLSON 7331 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8038 DALE R & JEAN A RUSCH 2856 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 DEBBRA C HILL 7640 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 GUILLERMO E & JAMIE A ARIAS 7633 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 JACOB O CROOKS & MICHAEL A & RENATE E CROOKS 7450 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8037 AMYIBOEHM 7702 COACH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 BRANDON B WAGNER 7659 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 BRIAN W SHEPARD & NICHOLE M WHETSTINE 7636 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 CATHERINE A HOLTE 7630 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 DARRYL E COSTELLO PO BOX 34 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-0034 ERIK M JOHNSON PO BOX 545 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0545 HELEN R HUBER 2828 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434 JANET K OPHEIM 7704 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 JASON & JENNIFER VEUM JEFFRY KARL RUSSELL JENNIFER A VONESCHEN 7629 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR 7632 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR 7643 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 JOAN B DYGERT JOHN C SCHIELE & HOLLY J BENTZ JOHN F ALTENBERND 2824 CENTURY TRL 2848 CENTURY TRL 7639 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 JOHN M WIGEN 7625 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 553174419 KELLY A PEDERSON & JOHN H & JUDY A PEDERSON 7627 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 LARRY A & VIVIAN S NELSON 2832 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 553174420 LINDA LEE SIMON 7706 COACH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 MATTHEW J NARDO 7650 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 MICHAEL B HERMAN 2921 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4423 MICHAEL W SCHACHTERLE & CRYSTAL E SCHACHTERLE 2852 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 NANCYJEANLARSON 7704 COACH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA CORP 815 NORTHWEST PKY SUITE 140 EAGAN MN 55121-1580 KATHRYN ELLEN GRIEGER 2923 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 553174423 KELLY KAY SCHUFT 7702 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 LEAH L RUDNICKI & JACOB C & BETH A RUDNICKI 2837 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 LISA A ALT 7703 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 MATTHEW L MAETZOLD & JILL K WASHBURN 7613 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 MICHAEL D & AMY L ARMBRUST 7630 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 MOLLY J LYSFJORD 7652 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 PAUL J & KELLY K RAIMONDO 7632 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA KEITH D TURNQUIST 7701 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 KIMBERLY B KOZAR 7629 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 LEE A AMIOT & JENNIFER M SCHMOLL 7617 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 MARYLJOHNSON 7633 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 MERALD A & ELAINE A KROGSTAD 7460 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8037 MICHAEL D & JANICE M CHOCKLAN 7651 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 NANCY A GALLAGHER 7705 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 PHILLIP A GROTHE 7628 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 C/O REAL ESTATE OFFICE ROBERT M & JILL R SOMERS 319 15TH AVE SE 2839 COACH CT 424 DON HOWE BLDG CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55455-0118 ROBERTA J RONBECK & JOAN L RYAN C BROWN & SARA M RYAN SCOTT R PASS & ELIZABETH D RON2840 CE K 7642 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL 2844 CRAINE-PASS 2840 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 2&44 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 SHANNON M HOGAN 7651 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 SHIRLEY A FORS 2820 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 SUSAN MCALLISTER 2930 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4501 TRACY J DOHENY 7634 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 WESLEY A DAHLSTROM 7637 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 WILLIAM E HART 7653 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 SHAWN R KERRIGAN 7648 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 STEVEN W RABY & MARY E FRASCZAK 7621 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 THERESA A LINN 7635 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 VICTOR D & KATHERINE T OATES 2832 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434 WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH 7801 PARK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9200 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SHEILA K DEWOLF 2830 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317=4434 SUMIKA CHAI 7649 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 THOMAS J SYLVESTER 7632 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 VINH Q DO NGUYEN 7657 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 WILLIAM A & IRENE V HINES 7631 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 (Approval) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT IN RE: Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review. On March 22, 2004, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development — Residential rezoning (PUD -R) for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. The City Council reviewed the minutes of the March 2, 2004 Planning Commission meeting at which a public hearing was conducted on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The City Council now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A. 4. Land Use Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and is consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. C) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance with the approval of the setback variance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: a) The proposed development preserves the majority of desirable site characteristics and open space, and protects sensitive environmental features, including mature trees, creeks and wetlands. b) The proposed development is an efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through the clustering of the development on the site and the use of a private street. C) The proposed development is a high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. d) The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. 2 e) The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. f) The proposed development preserves the majority of the Bluff Creek Corridor primary zone. g) The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not affordable housing. h) The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use of the clustering of buildings. i) The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. 6. Subdivision a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance subject to approval of the variance and revisions as recommended in the staff report. b) The subdivision meets all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. c) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan. d) 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. e) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter. f) The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage. g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will dedicate all appropriate new easements. h) The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are available or will be constructed with the development. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: (1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. (2) Lack of adequate roads. (3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. (4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: a) The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b) The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c) The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d) The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e) The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f) The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g) The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h) The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i) The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j) The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k) The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. 0 1) The proposed development meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback variance. 8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to develop the site and preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The site constraints of the primary zone and West 78`s Street lead to the need for a variance. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with surrounding development. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but is due to site constraints. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a) The proposed development is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements; c) The proposed development preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable subject to the revisions of the staff report by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developments or developing areas; d) The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space subject to the revisions recommended in the staff report with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: (1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; (2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; (3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and (4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 10. The planning report #04-01 dated March 2, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. 0 (Denial) CITY OF CHANHA.SSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review. On January 6, 2004 and March 2, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development — Residential rezoning (PUD -R) for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A. 4. Land Use Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is not compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. C) The proposed use does not conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the Bluff Creek Overlay District. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: a) The proposed development does not adequately preserve desirable site characteristics and open space nor protect sensitive environmental features, including mature trees, creeks and wetlands. b) The proposed development does not efficiently and effectively use the land, open space and public facilities. C) The proposed development is a high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. d) The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. e) The proposed development is Development which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. f) The proposed development does not adequately preserve the Bluff Creek Corridor primary zone. g) The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not affordable housing. h) The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use of the clustering of buildings. i) The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. 6. Subdivision a) The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the zoning ordinance. b) The subdivision does not meet all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. c) The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan. d) 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. e) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter. f) The proposed subdivision will cause significant environmental damage. g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will dedicate all appropriate new easements. h) The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are available or will be constructed with the development. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: (1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. (2) Lack of adequate roads. (3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. (4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: a) The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b) The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c) The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d) The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e) The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f) The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g) The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h) The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i) The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j) The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k) The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values 4 1) The proposed development meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback variance. 8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance does not preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The site constraints of the primary zone and West 78t° Street lead to the need for a variance. An alternate development scenario may not require a variance. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with surrounding development. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a) The proposed development is inconsistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b) The proposed development is inconsistent with the site plan review requirements since it does not meet required setbacks; c) The proposed development does not preserve the site in its natural state to the extent practical; d) The proposed development does not create a harmonious relationship of building and open; c) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: (1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; (2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; (3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and (4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 10. The planning report #04-01 dated March 2, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development — Residential rezoning (PUD -R) for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. 11• ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2°a day of March, CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION 7 Uli Sacchet, Chairman Susan McAllister March 15. 2004 Honorable Mayor Thomas Furlong, Hand Delivered Members of the City Council - Planning Commission Members, City of Chanhassen, 7700 Market Blvd., Cbanbassen, MN 55317 In my view the following exhibits represent documents as to why my property should not have been consumed by approximately 50% of the Primary Zone. In fact the Primary Zone should be confined to no more than the 300' buffer as stated in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, December 1996. After further reviewing the Primary Zone issue for my proposed development I have found the following information needs to be addressed. The City classified the headwaters of the Bluff Creek shown as the Upland Area as defined according to the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, Draft July 1996 pg. 14 and final report, December 1996, pgs.15-19. Exhibit A 11 I. B Region I - Uplands Lake Mumewashta to Highway 5 • B. I Natural Resources — Wetlands; pg. 19 "Wetlands in the uplands are generally of poor quality due to drainage and invasion by reed canary. Scattered pockets of wetland containing native vegetation such as sedges, cattail, green ash and elm are present; however, these areas make up only a small portion of the total wetland areas." Exhibit B • B. 1 Natural Resources — Forests; pg. 15 "Lowland hardwood forest is found along the stream corridor with species such as boxelder and black willow dominant. These stands are generally of poor quality due to their small size and past logging and/or grazing activities. Exotic/aggressive shrub species such as buckthorn and prickly ash are the common understory species." Exhibit C • B. 1 Natural Resources — Wildlife; pg. 19 "Appendices A and B list common and endangered mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles which could occur in forest and wetland habitats of the Bluff Creek Watershed. Because most wetland and upland forested communities are of small size or in poor condition only those species which can tolerate higher levels of human disturbances and that are adapted as "edge species" are likely to be common. Common "edge species" in the uplands might include raccoon, red fox, whitetail deer and ring-necked pheasant. Other species shown in Appendices A and B are probably present but uncommon in the uplands." 2930 West 7C Street Chanhassen, MN 553174501 952401-9521 pg. 2 Further, Exhibit D V. Recommendations, pg. 64. A.1 Uplands "Recommendations in this segment focus on restoring wetland communities and re- establishing big woods forest species on upland areas. This segment of the Bluff Creek Corridor and the sites addressed below are shown in Figure 9 on page 45. The corridor boundaries are defined by existing wetlands and recommended 300 foot buffer strips along either side of the Bluff Creek." Exhibit E Continuing V. Recommendations, pg. 65 • Site la. — Shallow Marsh Restoration "Me hydrology of this wetland has been altered by a ditch which exists in the southeast portion of the wetland. Artificial basin drainage has altered the hydrology and caused a shift of plant species tolerant of standing water or saturated soil to reed canary grass, which grows best in seasonally flooded conditions. Reed canary grass is a colonizing, invasive specie which out competes native species following disturbances from agricultural use, drainage, filling, siltation and others. Its aggressiveness allows the formation of persistent monotypic stands of the species. Wildlife values of the wetland are reduced from a loss in plant diversity and cover that other emergents provide. The wetland likely existed as a higher quality emergent marsh prior to the drainage." The city goes further in November 14, 2000 according to your narrative found in the Planning Commission report prepared for Pulte's Arboretum Village Development on pg. 14 by stating; Exhibit F • "Basin 3 is part of a wetland complex that spans the northern edge of the site. This complex is a portion of the headwaters for Bluff Creek and is therefore within the Primary Zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District." However, it continues to state; "A 20 -foot buffer is proposed. Because the basin is an ag/urban wetland, only a buffer with a 10 -foot minimum average width is required. The applicant may choose to include a wider buffer." This eliminated the Primary Zone in its entirety and only recognizes the buffer strip of 20 feet. Additionally, on pg. 31 under the November 14, 2000 Planning Commission report, conditions recommend approval subject to: Exhibit G Item 2 of Site Plan Review #99-21, pg. 31 • "A 20 -foot buffer is proposed for Basin 3. Because the basin is an ag/urban wetland, only a buffer with a 10 -foot minimum average width is required. The applicant may choose to include a buffer wider than the required 10 -foot nummum average." Exhibit H The Pulte's Planning Commission Report dated January 16, 2001 has referenced Basin 3 as follows: Wetlands — Basin 3, pg. 14 • "Basin 3 is part of a wetland complex that spans the northern edge of the site. This complex is a portion of the headwaters for Bluff Creek and is therefore within the Primary Zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District". ..."A 20 -foot buffer is proposed." Pg. 3 Exhibit I In the same report on pg. 15 the report states; • "Prior to December 14, 1992, principal structures were required to maintain a 75 -foot setback from the wetland boundary. This allowed property owners to mow to the edge of the wetland as long as the principal structure did not encroach into the setback. On December 14, 1992, the City adopted a wetland ordinance that reduced the setback requirement, but added an additional requirement: a buffer strip. Requiring a buffer strip with a decreased setback is more beneficial than simply maintaining a 75 -foot setback. Buffers provide aesthetic screening, wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity as well as water quality benefits, while reduced setbacks allow better use of potentially buildable areas. In addition, wetland boundaries are not linear. Therefore, in some situations, it may be more beneficial to the City, the property owner and the health of the wetland if the buffer width varies." ... " Acceptable widths vary according to the classification of the wetland (Pristine, Natural, Ag/Urban or Utilized)." Exhibit J Further the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Plan, December 1996 final report states on page 78-79: • "transferable development rights can be used as an incentive to protect green space in sensitive subwatersheds. Development rights of one parcel of land where growth is not desired are transferred to another parcel of land where growth is encouraged at a higher dens i than would otherwise be possible." Is the reason that my property actually ended up with almost half of it delineated as the Primary Zone because the City in all likelihood did "ear -mark" my site as the last remaining open space to eventually be joined with the park land from Puke's Arboretum Village? I believe it is obvious through my documentation that the city's justification for virtually eliminating the Primary Zone along Pulte's most Northeast side and recognizing only the buffer strip was by simply following the Wetland Ordinance of December 14, 1992. According to Pulte's approved development plan the upper most Northeast section along the wetland shows that the city has allowed instead the Primary Zone to be stacked to the upper North border of my property, and may have accidentally stacked some of it onto the North half of my property. More than anything, my documentation also proves that the Primary Zone is moveable. At the Planning Commission meeting, March 2, 2004, Commissioner Claybaugh stated, the Primary Zone delineation "is part art as much as it is science", and the "part art" is that I now find I have a $280,000 piece of art taking up the North half of my property, that I can't even dust! I can't afford that kind of a loss. I am willing to recognize the Primary Zone to a degree in order to preserve an area along the headwaters. The documentation that my developer and I have furnished shows the maximum Primary Zone is at most the exact area as shown on the GIS map of 300'. Due to the poor quality Ag/Urban wetland, degraded wildlife areas and degraded plant species due to past farming practices, this area would seem to not be as important to preserve as everyone is making it out to be. Before the farm was purchased in 1983 solid waste was dumped in the Northeast comer of my property's Primary Zone. Due to past MN/DOT practices the convenient location of my farm to a MN/DOT project allowed them to dump massive amounts of ROW muck along the North edge of my property, now located in the Primary Zone. Due to past and present farm practices on this property, the area north of the barn lying in the Primary Zone has manure piles in it according to my site plan and would need to be graded out of there. Tberefore, this property is the same degraded area as the Pulte's site along the edges of the Bluff Creek headwaters known as Basin 3. Pg. 4 Unfortunately, I was just two weeks away from opening my petting farm, but my life was changed drastically due to my injuries, and I was never able to open it. I now need to deal with the issues regarding my health. I have done nothing to further the completion of the petting farm as of November I , 2002. I therefore have officially lost my Interium Use permit. Any new fences that have been added were not in compliance whatsoever with my Petting Farm's Site Plan. The fences were only to temporarily help friends in need on a personal basis. Please help the developers in achieving our goal of being treated as fairly as Pulte was with the same basic density using the Bluff Creek Ordinance which allows us to furnish our documentation where we believe the actual Primary Zone is located. Let's benefit both sides which I believe is the "suitable balance" that is stated in the ordinance. Please allow us to move expediently forward according to the first bullet item on pg. 80 of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan; "Expedite development submittal review: The development review process is likely to proceed more smoothly because site designers have anticipated and taken into account many of the concerns that often become time-consuming issues that are costly to resolve." We have wasted almost one year going around in circles. I feel that I have provided adequate information to the developer of this project and to the City in order to have the Primary Zone moved and more units allowed. Sincerel , Susan McAllister F_x i s 1 ' A ■ Wetlands Wetlands in the uplands are generally of poor quality due to drainage and invasion by reed canary. Scattered pockets of wetland containing native vegetation such as sedges, cattail, green ash and elm are present; however, these areas make up only a small portion of the total wetland area (See Figure 5). ■ Wildlife Appendices A and B list common and endangered mammals, birds. i ^ , amphibians and reptiles which could occur in forest and wetland habitats of the Bluff Creek Watershed. Because most wetland and upland forested communities are of small size or in poor condition, only those species which can tolerate higher levels of human disturbance and that are adapted as edge species" are likely to be common. Common "edge species" in the uplands might include raccoon, red fox, white -tail deer and ring-necked pheasant. Other species shown in Appendices A and B are probably present but uncommon in the uplands. ■ Fisheries The uplands form the headwaters ofBluff Creek. Within this reach, much of the creek has been ditched. The base flow is ephemeral, the gradient low and the flow is sluggish with silt deposition common in many areas of the creek. Fish populations have not been studied in this reach but are likely marginal due to poor habitat. ■Runoff The natural pre -development features indicate that runoff was low through the year and minimal during the growing season. More than likely, wetland bio -mass used most of the runoff draining into the wetlands at the peak of the growing season. overflows would only occur during infrequent stomp events (3-5 year storm events and larger). ■ Water Quantity The Uplands section has a high wetland to upland ratio; therefore, peak flows along the creek will remain low, even after the watershed is fully developed. The Hwy 5 crossing is the end point of the Uplands section. The estimated peak flow at Hwy 5 resulting from a 100 -year precipitation event is 67 cfs under fully -developed conditions. This peak flow is low considering there are 480 acres of land draining to this point. This low peak flow will help maintain the flow regime needed to protect the Gorge section below. Bh df Creek waterSFieJ f kxh.rral Rroarrce5 ,lar agervent Plan Page I Q Pioneer Trail, where the stream has carved a deep ravine, with an approximated bed slope of 60 feet per mile. ■ Soils Soils in the watershed are shown in Figure 2. The soils along the stream can be divided into three distinct regional associations. The soils at the headwaters of Bluff Creek are predominantly hydric, marshy with peat and muck, seasonally saturated and ideal for wetland vegetation growth. As the stream descends into the bluff, the dominant soils are Hayden loams of 12 to 40 percent slopes. These soils are extremely erodible. At the base of the bluff, the predominant soil type is marsh. ■ Regions For the purpose of describing in more detail the watershed characteristics and the implications of the Steering Committee's vision, the Bluff Creek Watershed has been subdivided into the following five regions (See Figure 3): Region I Uplands Lake Minnewashta to Highway 5 Region 2 Meadowlands Highway 5 to Lyman Boulevard Region 3 Lowlands Lyman Boulevard to Pioneer Trail Region 4 Gorge Pioneer Trail to 4-lighway 212 Region 5 Seminary Fen East of Bluff Creek/north of Highway 212 111.6 Region I - IAplanck Lake Minnewashta to Highway 5 B.I Notural Resources • Forest Lowland hardwood forest is found along ttre stream corridor with species such as boxelder and black willow dominant (See Figure 4). x These stands are generally of poor quality due to their small size and �J past logging and/or grazing activities. Exotic/aggressive shrub species such as buckthorn and prickly ash are the common understory 15 species. Several stands of mesic oak forest ranging from about two to 10 acres in size are also present. These stands are dominated by northern red oak and bur oak and contain exotic shrub species in their understory. A maple basswood/oak forest of approximately 40 acres in size is found ori the Camp Tanadooma property along the shore of Lake Minnewashta. hurt i reek, Waterhed flahrral Re5otn'ce5 Management Plan Page 15 �/, Recomwlevldcftiom This section recommends a series of projects and practices necessary to achieve the vision and goals of the Steering Committee. VA Nahnral Re5owrces A.1 Llplands Recommendations in this segment focus on restoring wetland communities and re-establishing big woods forest species on upland I areas. This segment of the Bluff Creek Corridor and the sites addressed �� below are shown in Figure 9 on page 45. The corridor boundaries are defined by existing wetlands and recommended 3foot buffer stn D along either side of the Bluff Creek. The following plan of action is recommended: ■ Site I a -Shallow Marsh Restoration pry(� �r This site is within an existing wetland located between Hazeltine Boulevard and Galpin Avenue. The plant community is dominated by reed canary grass with small amounts of nettle, willows, jewelweed, elm and boxelder present. Protecting, restorng and re-estabtahrg forest ;o cies m upland areas is necessary to achieve the vision. Wetland restoration of this basin will involve the reestablishment of a mixed emergent marsh wetland community. Mixed emergent marsh are typically dominated by a variety of emergents. Different types of bulrush commonly occur in the deeper portion of the wetland and are dominants. This community changes into a fringe of wet meadow grasses including prairie cord grass, spike rushes and a variety of sedges. Restoration of this wetland will involve the removal of reed canary grass and restoring the hydrology and mixed emergent marsh communities to the wetland. Removal of reed canary grass often needs to include herbicide treatment in combination with a prescribed bum (when possible). This, combined with increased water levels, should remove reed canary grass. It may not be practical to treat the entire site with herbicide or to do a prescribed burn. The areas that will have sustained water levels of 12 inches should not need to be treated with herbicide or burned because of reed canary grass's intolerance to sustained water levels. Areas with less then 12 inches of sustained water levels will need to have some type of treatment to remove the reed canary grass. Restoration of the hydrology could be accomplished with construction of a control structure at the wetlands outlet. The following considerations need to be addressed before the control structure is constructed: I . flows Special considerations need to made to insure the control structure discharge capacity will be sufficient to handle the existing flows. 2. The control stn ucture should not allow bypassing. 3. Consider potential conflicts with adjacent lands 4. Create an appropriate hydrologic regime for the restored wetland If feasible. a control structure with potential foi water level regulation is preferred. It allows maintenance on the outlet and control structure when needed and will help control plant succession a benefit to waterfowl. Revegetation of the site may occur naturally over time. If quicker and more dependable results are wanted then the area should be planted and seeded root stock can accelerate the process. An economical solution is 131utf Greek water4ied Hatural Rescxtrces Mariagertient Plan Paye 0 The hydrology of this wetland has been altered by a ditch which exists in the southeast portion of the wetland. Artificial basin drainage has altered N 1 �� the hydrology and caused a shift of plant species tolerant of standing water or saturated soil to reed canary grass, which grows best in EXseasonally I �� flooded conditions. Reed canary grass is a colonizing, invasive specie which out competes native species following disturbances from agricultural use, drainage, filling, siltation and others. Its aggressiveness allows the formation of persistent monotypic stands of the species. Wildlife values of the wetland are reduced from a loss in plant diversity and cover that other emergents provide. The wetland likely existed as a higher quality emergent marsh prior to the drainage. Restoration of this wetland will involve the removal of reed canary grass and restoring the hydrology and mixed emergent marsh communities to the wetland. Removal of reed canary grass often needs to include herbicide treatment in combination with a prescribed bum (when possible). This, combined with increased water levels, should remove reed canary grass. It may not be practical to treat the entire site with herbicide or to do a prescribed burn. The areas that will have sustained water levels of 12 inches should not need to be treated with herbicide or burned because of reed canary grass's intolerance to sustained water levels. Areas with less then 12 inches of sustained water levels will need to have some type of treatment to remove the reed canary grass. Restoration of the hydrology could be accomplished with construction of a control structure at the wetlands outlet. The following considerations need to be addressed before the control structure is constructed: I . flows Special considerations need to made to insure the control structure discharge capacity will be sufficient to handle the existing flows. 2. The control stn ucture should not allow bypassing. 3. Consider potential conflicts with adjacent lands 4. Create an appropriate hydrologic regime for the restored wetland If feasible. a control structure with potential foi water level regulation is preferred. It allows maintenance on the outlet and control structure when needed and will help control plant succession a benefit to waterfowl. Revegetation of the site may occur naturally over time. If quicker and more dependable results are wanted then the area should be planted and seeded root stock can accelerate the process. An economical solution is 131utf Greek water4ied Hatural Rescxtrces Mariagertient Plan Paye 0 Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 14 Basin 2 Basin 2 is a utilized wetland located just north of Highway 5 near the middle of the property. The basin is dominated by reed canary grass and common cattail. No wetland impact is proposed in this basin; however, storm water will be discharged into the basin. The applicant has proposed a 10 -foot buffer with a 40 -foot setback from the wetland buffer edge for this basin. Since this basin is a utilized wetland, neither a buffer nor a setback is required; however, the applicant may choose to include them. Basin 3 Basin 3 is part of a wetland complex that spans the northern edge of the site. This complex isa portion of the headwaters for Bluff Creek and is therefore within the Primary Zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and contains nettles, willow and jewelweed. Because the adjacent upland has been farmed for many years, very little wetland buffer currently exists adjacent to the basin. A 20 -foot buffer is proposed. Because the basin is an aglurban wetland, only a buffer with a 10 -foot minimum average width is re �\ The app icant may choose to include a wider buffer. t rincipal structures must maintain a 40 -foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. Several proposed structures encroach into the 40 -foot setback (Lots 16. 17, 18 and 19 of Phase 1, Outlot` B; %2 court basketball in Phase 2.Outlot B; Lots 18 and 19 of Phase 2, Outlot Q. If the applicant decreases the buffer in these areas and still maintains a 10 -foot minimum average buffer around the basin, the structures could meet the 40 -foot setback requirement. L�awasc�a) Drainageway 1 is an area dominated by reed canary grass that flows north into Basin 3. The applicant proposes 0.08 acres of wetland impact for a road crossing. To reduce potential impacts to the drainageway from the proposed fill, the applicant has proposed a storm sewer inlet on the south side of the road crossing. This will act to drain excess storm water away from the area, thus preventing the drainageway from becoming wetter. (The applicant should be advised that, while some drainage may be necessary, excessive drainage of the drainageway might cause additional wetland impact, which would require mitigation of wetlands at a 2:1 ratio.) Basin 4 Basin 4 is located in the extreme southwest corner of the site and is adjacent to the intersection of Highways 5 and 41. This wetland receives storm water from the intersection and also the southwest portion of the property. This wetland is an emergent marsh dominated by reed canary grass and cattails. No wetland fill or drainage is proposed in this basin; however, some storm water from the southwest portion of the site will be diverted into the basin through the use of overland drainage. Pretreatment will be provided through the use of vegetated swales. Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 31 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #99-21 — for 36 club homes, 73 manor homes, 82 coach homes, 160 Village homes and 32 rental townhouses subject to the following conditions: 1. The development must comply with the Arboretum Village Development Design Standards." The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #00-4 — to fill .54 acres of wetlands in 2 separate basins subject to the following :.,;Aditions: 1. The applicant has proposed a 10 -foot buffer with a 40 -foot setback from the wetland buffer edge for Basin 2. Since this basin is a utilized wetland. neither a buffer nor a setback is required; however, the applicant may choose to include them.I g T ex I 2. A 20 -foot buffer is proposed for Basin 3. Because the basin is an ag/urban wetland, only a buffer with a 10 -foot minimum average width is required. —be applicant may choose to include a buffer wider than the required 10 -foot mirimur: avera e. Pnncipa c res must maintain a 40 -foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. Several proposed structures encroach into the 40 -foot setback (Lots 16. 17. 18 and 19 of Phase 1, Outlot B; %2 court basketball in Phase 2. Outlot B: Lets 18 and 19 of Phase 2, Outlot Q. If the applicant decreases the buffer in these areas and still maintains a 10 -foot minimum average buffer around the basin, the structures could meet the 40 -foot setback requirement. 4. To reduce potential impacts to Drainageway 1 from the proposed fill, the applicant has proposed a storm sewer inlet on the south side of the road crossing. This will act to drain excess storm water away from the area. thus preventing the drainageway from becoming wetter. The applicant should be advised that. while some drainage may be necessary, excessive drainage of the drainageway might cause additional wetland impact, which would require mitigation of wetlands at a 2:1 ratio. 5. Principal structures adjacent to Basin 5 must be set back 40 feet from the edge of the buffer. Lot 19, Outlot B, Phase 1 does not meet this requirement. 6. In order to make the most efficient and effective use of land, staff recommends the front yard setback on Lots 17 and 18, Outlot B, Phase 1 be reduced to 20 feet. This would allow the cul-de-sac to be moved 10 feet to the west and a 20 -foot puffer to be established between the edge of curb and the edge of Basin 5. 7. The designation of the outlot in the northwestern most portion of the property is not consistent between the preliminary plat ("Outlot F) and other plan sheets ("Outlot F). 1 Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 14 maple). These trees are either at the edge of the grading limits or within but close enough in elevation to merit an attempt at preservation through a change in grading plans or the use of retaining walls. Staff would recommend that the applicant work with the city to preserve any or all of these trees. In addition, staff recommends a walk-through on site to inspect silt/tree preservation fence prior to construction. Wetlands Nine ag/urban wetlands and one utilized wetland exist on-site. Wetlands comprise approximately 26.29 acres of the 120.93 -acre proposed development. Basin 1 north o is Basin 1 is an ag/urban wetland located just from the Highwayf Highway 5 and west of Basin di6.tch The basin a dominated by reed canary grass. It receives water roadside ditch and from a pipe that discharges into the basin from the west. Surface water flowss from this basin through a ravine to Basin 6. No wetland impact is proposed in this basin. Basin 2 the Basin 2 is a utilized wetland located just north odf Highway cattail No wetland impact ro proposed The basin is dominated by reed canary gran in this basin; however, storm water will be discharged into the basin. The applicant has proposed m the wetland buffer ufferdge for this basin a 10 -foot buffer with a 40 -foot setback from Basin 3 Basin 3 -is part of a wetland complex that spans the northern edge of the site. This complex is a portion of the headwaters for Bluff Creek and is therefore within the Primary and contains thenettBsuff Creek Overlay District. The wetland is dominated by reed canary g ears, very little willow and jewelweed. Because the adjacent upland has been farmed for many yth wetland buffer currently exists adjacent to the basin. A 20 -foot buffer is proposed. �-- F Principal structures must maintain a 40 -foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. n ��ti 418t -r eekfequkeffWA—. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 15 Prior to December 14, 1992, principal structures were required to maintain a 75 -foot setback from the wetland boundary. This allowed property owners to mow to the edge of the wetland as long as the principal structure did not encroach into the setback. On December 14, 1992, the City adopted a wetland ordinance that reduced the setback requirement, but added an additional requirement: a buffer strip. Requiring a buffer strip with a decreased setback is more beneficial than simply maintaining a 75 -foot setback. Buffers provide aesthetic screening, wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity as well as water quality benefits, while reduced setbacks allow better use of potentially buildable areas. In addition, wetland boundaries are not linear. Therefore, in some situations, it may be more beneficial to the City, the property owner and the health of the wetland if the buffer width varies. Recognizing this led the City to include acceptable ranges for buffer widths into the wetland ordinance. Acceptable widths vary according to the classification of the wetland (Pristine, Natural, Ag/Urban or Utilized). The following structures are proposed to encroach into the required 40 -foot setback: t5wT31T L Under the current proposal, the applicant would be required to apply for variances from the required setback for the above structures. Chanhassen City Code states that ag/urban wetlands, like those on this site, must preserve a 0-20 foot wide buffer strip that maintains a minimum average width of 10 feet. Therefore, it is acceptable for the applicant to decrease the width of the proposed buffer in the seven locations listed above. If the applicant decreases the width of the buffer in the above areas (but does not eliminate the buffer in any area, thereby preserving buffer function), all but one of the proposed structures (Phase I, Outlot B, Lot 17) would meet the required setback. The applicant should resolve the encroachment of the above structures into the wetland buffer setback. If the applicant chooses to decrease buffer width in any or all of the above areas, all plan sheets showing the proposed buffer and setbacks must reflect these changes. Drainageway 1 is an area dominated by reed canary grass that flows north into Basin 3. The applicant proposes 0.08 acres of wetland impact for a road crossing. To reduce potential impacts to the drainageway from the proposed fill, the applicant has proposed a storm sewer inlet on the south side of the road crossing TI.' ffam tl.eafe The Phase I: Phase II: Outlot A,'% Court Basketball Outlot B, Lots 16 and 17 Outlot C, Lot 19 Outlot B, Lots 7 and 9 Outlot C, Lot 19 Under the current proposal, the applicant would be required to apply for variances from the required setback for the above structures. Chanhassen City Code states that ag/urban wetlands, like those on this site, must preserve a 0-20 foot wide buffer strip that maintains a minimum average width of 10 feet. Therefore, it is acceptable for the applicant to decrease the width of the proposed buffer in the seven locations listed above. If the applicant decreases the width of the buffer in the above areas (but does not eliminate the buffer in any area, thereby preserving buffer function), all but one of the proposed structures (Phase I, Outlot B, Lot 17) would meet the required setback. The applicant should resolve the encroachment of the above structures into the wetland buffer setback. If the applicant chooses to decrease buffer width in any or all of the above areas, all plan sheets showing the proposed buffer and setbacks must reflect these changes. Drainageway 1 is an area dominated by reed canary grass that flows north into Basin 3. The applicant proposes 0.08 acres of wetland impact for a road crossing. To reduce potential impacts to the drainageway from the proposed fill, the applicant has proposed a storm sewer inlet on the south side of the road crossing TI.' ffam tl.eafe The Demo Sites: Plan and prepare typical demonstration projects integrating native ecological features for all types of land uses. Implement BMPs, native vegetation establishment and stormwater control and treatment. The sites can be used for education, information and incentive for others. V.E Land Use and Zoviing The approach presented in this plan requires the continuity of the Natural Features delineated by the primary and secondary corridors. Primary Zone: The primary zone is the buffer zone with direct impacts affecting the creek. Ideally, the City will have fee title to these areas either by dedication and/or purchase of the land. Some flexible measures should be incorporated into this buffer zone (i.e., conservation zoning, conservation easements, public purchase, cluster development, transfer of development rights and private dedication to public) similar to the City's wetland buffer ordinance. Density compensation can also be considered, as this scheme grants a developer credit for additional density elsewhere on the site. Secondary Zone: The secondary zone includes habitat areas that are valuable to the delicate balance of the ecosystem, and therefore, limited development is recommended. Conservation areas will be encouraged and education to the property owners is a high priority to help preset ve the habitat. Development in this zone will include features that reduce impervious area and provide stewardship of the land. Watershed -based Zoning and Cluster Development or Open Space Design are recommended in the Bluff Creek Watershed. In his book, Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection, Toni Schueler recommends for conditions similar to Bluff Creek Watershed an imperviousness between 10 and 20 percent. Since 10 to 20 percent is not possible to achieve throughout the watershed, the subwatersheds draining into Bluff Creek should fall into one of three management categories based on the amount of impervious cover found in its subwatershed. Sensitive Subwatershed (I -10 percent impervious cover) Degrading Subwate shed (11-25 percent impervious cover) Non -supporting Subwatershed (26-100 percent impervious cover) �Y' %'r green development rights can be used as an incentive to protect green space in sensitive subwatesheds. Development rights of one parcel 03 t3lntt Creek water�fied ilatrnral Resources M,anagennernt Plan _hitt Page 78 of land where growth is not desired are transferred to another parcel of land where growth is encouraged at a higher density than would otherwise be possible. It is recommended that the subwatersheds in the Bluff Creek Watershed be reviewed and assigned a management category. The average impervious cover across the undeveloped watershed should not be greater than 20 percent after development. The average impervious cover across the developed portion of the watershed can not be changed at this point. Where the land has been zoned in the watershed, it is recommended that any future development review the management protocol for imperviousness for the subwatershed and consider open space design methods for development. Where the land has not been zoned in the watershed, it is recommended that any future development be required to follow the management protocol for imperviousness and use open space design methods or stream protection clustering. Well-designed and implemented cluster developments can provide many important economic, environmental and community benefits when compared to conventional subdivision designs. Those include: Reduces site imperviousness by 10 to 50 percent. depending on the original lot size and road network. Reduces stormwatei runoff and pollutant k)ads Reduces potential pressure to enc oath on resource and buffer areas Reduces soil erosion potential since 25 to 60 percent of site is never clear ed Reserves 25 to 50 per of site as green space that is not required in conventional subdivisions • Reserves 15 percent of site in open space dedicated to passive recreation • Provides partial or total compensation for lots that may be lost when land is reserved for resource protection areas and stream buffers Reduces capital cost of development by 10 to 33 percent Reduces the cost of future public set -vices needed by the development. P Can increase future residential property values Reduces the size and cost of stormwatei quantity and quality controls Concentrates runoff where it can be most effectively treated Provides a wider range of feasible sites to locate stormwater BMPs Creates larger urban wildlife habitat "islands" Increases sense of community and pedestrian movement Can support other community planning goals, such as farmland preservation affordable housing and architectural diversity r31i rtt [reek watersfizd rintural R�,txrrces Alanagemertt Plan!_;,W�)� Payr 19 Open space designs can offer distinct and measurable economic advantages over conventional layouts in at least five different ways. These include: Expedite development submittal review: The development review process is likely to proceed more smoothly because site designers have anticipated and taken into account many of the concerns that often become time-consuming issues that are costly to resolve. Lower Costs: Open space design ircludes a reduction in infrastructure engineering and construction costs. Lot sizes are reduced and street and utility runs shortened. Marketing and Sales Advantage: Developers and realtors can capitalize on amenities that have been preserved or provided within the development. Value Appreciation: The National Park Service has documented examples that demonstrate how homes in open space developments tend to appreciate faster than in conventional subdivisions. Reduces Demand for New Public Parkland: The natural areas preserved and the recreational amenities that are provided in such communities help to reduce the demand for public open space. parkland, playing fields, and other areas for active and passive recreation. Where land has been zoned industrial/commei tial, open space design concepts can still be used. Open space can be preserved using building setbacks, providing infiltration design methods for parking lot runoff, shared parking and landscaping. Nnff CreeO. watershed natural Resources Management Plan Page 50 Z _' - _AAU �r 'i _ g 4*1 r rg .a . � -of /f A: %k �r 'i r im F 1 e t gor - ♦ # ME 3 � j Ism -IL V I t so AAAA r PIF77� a.1 i ♦ r t � r a/ w I M }. �yy., w y t- K'� 'IRS � •.� fir., .. eir±,±+ `7 , 03/25/04 —14-53 FAX 952 937 5822 _ _ WESTWOOD PROF. SERVICES Z001 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. W PLANNING• ENGINEERING• SURVEYING FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Pra41e, MN 55344 PI 952-937-5150 Fag: 952-937-5822 Toll free: 1-858-937-5150 E-mail: wpzOwestwoodps.com Date: March 25, 2004 TWIN dT1E51911ET10 5T. CLOUD To: Bob Generous City of Chanhassen WUIUNEFID (952)937-5739 From: Ed Hasek Regarding: Highlands of Bluff Creek - Hammerhead Project No.: 20032566 Number of pages including this cover letter 4 Please call 952-937-5150 if you do not receive all pages or experience difficulty receiving this transmission. Purpose: As you requested Remarks: Included is a Auto -tum necessary to other stat be id utilities are to be included, I will need to _ Trail or not You asked for a profile of the next week but feel this plan addresses the fundamental issues discussed by the council, with the excention of the through street. It will take at least three workina days to revise all of the Please call if you have any questions at all. Thanks Ed 937-5150 Copy to: File ts; sk; dj Desl9nI g the FUone Todey...sinm 1972 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THE PERSONS OR ENTRIES NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT SUCH PERSONS OR ENTITIES, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISTRIBUTION, DISSEMINATION OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY CALL US COLLECT AT(962)937-5150. ,�')dr�� *yam X16, 'gym at Now �*r Z %(220 t�0/5Z/�0 OMa, L-1d995Z,00Z N�jniOlnb v 0 in S3mmas 'd aoo Lsam ZZBS L£8 Z98 YVd 69:6I 60iSZ/£0 J 03/25/04 14:55 FAX 952 937 5822 WESTWOOD PROF. SERVICES IMO04 3,960 sf 1 PAI 7 3,103 sf 3,960 f 2 3� 3,157 sf 1 4,028 sf 3 z nr_n -c Westwood Professional Services, Inc. PLANNING• ENGINEERING- SURVEYING TRANSMITTAL Date: To: March 12, 2004 Bob Generous CIN OF RECEIVED SSEN MAR 12 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT �v 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: 952-937-5150 Fax: 952-937-5822 Toll free: 1-888-937-5150 E-mail: wpsOwestwoodps.com TWIN CMESIMETRO ST. CLOUD BRAINERD City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 From: Ed Hasek Regarding: Plowshares - Highlands of Bluff Creek Proj. No.: 20022566 Items: No Description 7 sets of 4 drawings 7 sets of two colored graphics 1 reduced set of drawings Purpose: As you requested Remarks: Please let us know immediately if additional information will be required for your review. Ed Hasek — 952-937-5150 Delivery: Hand Deliver Copy to: file; cm Designing the Future Today -since 1972 1 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. PLANNING- ENGINEERING• SURVEYING TRANSMITTAL Date: February 3, 2004 To: Bob Generous CITY or RECEIVED SSEN 7599 Anagram Drive FEB 0 3 2004 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phwa: 952-937-5750 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Fax: 952-937-5822 Toll free: 1-888-937-5150 E-mail: wpsl1wesbNoodpscorn City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 From: Ed Hasek Regarding: Plowshares - Highlands of Bluff Creek Proj. No.: 20032566 Items: No Description 16 sets of revised plans dated 2/3/04 16 reduced sets of same 1 8 1/2 X 11 reduction 1 storm calc's Purpose: As you requested Remarks: Delivery: Hand Deliver Copy to: file; ts; sk; bh TWIN CITIES/METRO ST. CLOUD CITY OF CHANHASSEN 89AINERD RECEIVED FEB 0 3 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT issues outstanding with staff before Designing the Future Today ... since 1972 I 0 0 PRELIMINARY STORM WATER RUNOFF CALCULATIONS Highlands of Bluff Creek Chanhassen, MN for: Prepared by: Project # 20032566 Plowshares Development, LLC 1851 Lake Drive West Chanhassen, MN 55317 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone (952) 937-5150, Fax (952) 937-5822 January 6, 2004 0 SUMMARY 0 The attached storm water runoff and ponding calculations are based on Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) and The Soil Conservation Service Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method incorporated into the software program HydroCAD ver 6.10. RATE CONTROL An evaluation was made for both the pre -development and post -development peak runoff rates for the entire site. By using 12" outlet for Pond A the peak runoff rates were within rate control requirements. Following is a table summarizing pre -development and post -development peak runoff rates for the 10 -year, and 100 -year storms: PEAK RUNOFF RATES Pre -Development Post -Development Drainage 10 yr (cfs) 100 yr (cfs) 10 yr (cfs) 100 yr (cfs) North 2.33 6.35 2.28 5.74 78 St. 2.64 6.18 0.76 3.22 Totals 4.97 12.53 3.04 8.96 Following is a table summarizing the rate control pond system: Pond Drainage NWL Dead 100 -yr Live 100 -yr Area(acre) (feet) Storage HWL Storage Inflow (acre-feet) (feet) (acre-feet) (cfs) 100 -yr Overflow Discharge Elevation (cfsl (feet) Pond A 2.94 999.0 0.45 1000.0 0.22 18.80 2.41 1002.0 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. P.E. Reg. No. 19153 I o Date * WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. (952) 937-5150 W] W.Stwmd I \ / \ MPRO%IMAW EMSMC / DLUFF CREEK OVERLAY / DISTRICT NOUNDA & / / I / I .0 / I l TI x, r � I I I 1 i"C�Ipi-�vi4i wiilirw C_ � 11,�_I_J Westwood Professional Services, Inc ".est TstDine Eden Prau,e, MN 553H anwr 9529))-5150 Fa":9 17-58x3 I Mwewrw�I�lM �wr� ^ r � a.N y,is� � o,e yd.r rxr` I I Repand far. Plowshares Development, LLC 1851 Iske Drive Wen (-harJlv,en, WN 51317 D'wTdl C TdA f8 pt 01/06/W xyrr VIM Highlands of Bluff Creek Cdl e8 ~s C We digq q� GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin Gty am 651-454-0002 Mn. Ta Pre. 1-800-252-1166 0' 5D IWiso u -x xao]zwzoaPoi arF� o.e. 01/06/04 sly 1 oP 2 Existing Drainage Area Map a West,00e Profess—S,--, Inc. • I \ I � I \ I \ I I I 3 / I � A-0.39 S-0.0276 I L-290 FT I cr�-sa I � I � I I � I � I� J I 60 I L I I tux �rwrTr� •r+h �. r.� rr� WWestwood Professional Services, Inc y- IS"M Wa Orive Eden P` r .NH SSW _ More: 95JA32-515p fa�95L9))5621 U-idt [ ieL, rB o.- 01/05/01 u� sw BLi3 A-2aO AC (NRM�-"��^ A-2-94 AC "i — — _ — _ _ — 1 vro vo n1 s S-0.04 FT/FT \ -ti wo x L-250 FT y \ �r CN -7 L L �-.1Cwl>Bo� ti — ro— v � \ �� I Prepared for Plowshares Development, LLC 165) lake Drive West fw-r mr rw.- _ Chen6aaea 34J 55317 Highlands of Bluff Creek C 1 � Hours 60o,e d-1-1 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL T -on (Sty .3reo 651-454-0002 W. Tai Gree 1 -BW -252-1166 0 50' 100, c u-2 200x2..<ao2 3- 0..< 01/06/04 s6 -c 2 OF 2 Propsosed Drainage Area Map i i I I tux �rwrTr� •r+h �. r.� rr� WWestwood Professional Services, Inc y- IS"M Wa Orive Eden P` r .NH SSW _ More: 95JA32-515p fa�95L9))5621 U-idt [ ieL, rB o.- 01/05/01 u� sw BLi3 A-2aO AC (NRM�-"��^ A-2-94 AC "i — — _ — _ _ — 1 vro vo n1 s S-0.04 FT/FT \ -ti wo x L-250 FT y \ �r CN -7 L L �-.1Cwl>Bo� ti — ro— v � \ �� I Prepared for Plowshares Development, LLC 165) lake Drive West fw-r mr rw.- _ Chen6aaea 34J 55317 Highlands of Bluff Creek C 1 � Hours 60o,e d-1-1 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL T -on (Sty .3reo 651-454-0002 W. Tai Gree 1 -BW -252-1166 0 50' 100, c u-2 200x2..<ao2 3- 0..< 01/06/04 s6 -c 2 OF 2 Propsosed Drainage Area Map • 0 2S S4 Reach Aon Llftk 0 20032566 -EXISTING -1 0 -YR -03-12-11 Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. HydroCADO 6.10 s/n 002351 © 1986-2002 Applied Microc 40 Type 1124 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Page 1 Subcatchment 1S: Existing Drainage to North Runoff = 2.33 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.153 af, Depth= 0.66" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 1.840 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.850 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.090 98 Impervious Surface 2.780 58 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 13.1 370 0.0400 0.5 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 2S: Existing Drainage to South (West 78th Street) Runoff = 2.64 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.218 af, Depth= 0.91" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Descriotion 0.850 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 1.710 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B _ 0.320 98 Impervious Surface 2.880 63 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope _mi_n) (feet) (ft/ft) 22.9 475 0.0150 Description 0.3 Lag/CN Method, 0 20032566 -EXISTING -100 -YR -03-12-11 Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. HydroCADO6.10 s/n 002351 © 1986-2002 Applied Microc 40 Type 11 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Page 1 Subcatchment 1S: Existing Drainage to North Runoff = 6.35 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.364 af, Depth= 1.57' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Area a (ac) CN Description 1.840 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.850 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.090 98 ImDervious Surface 2.780 58 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 13.1 370 0.0400 0.5 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 2S: Existing Drainage to South (West 78th Street) Runoff = 6.18 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.470 af, Depth= 1.96" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.850 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 1.710 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B _ 0.320 98 Impervious Surface 2.880 63 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 22.9 475 0.0150 0.3 Lag/CN Method, 0 Subcat 'Reach Aon [Link 0 Diagram for 20032566 -PROPOSED -10 -YR -03-12-11 by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 1/6/2004 6.10 stn 002351 0 1986-2002 Applied Micuo mputer System 20032566 -PROPOSED -10 -YR -03-12-11 Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. HydroCADO 6.10 s/n 002351 © 1986-2002 Applied Microc 0 Type 11 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Page 1 Subcatchment 1S: Rear -yard Drainage to North Runoff = 2.28 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.148 af, Depth= 0.76" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 1.510 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.680 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.160 98 Impervious Surface 2.350 60 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.1 400 0.0350 0.5 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 2S: Drainage to Pond Runoff = 11.04 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.480 af, Depth= 1.96" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 0.040 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 1.440 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1.460 98 Impervious Surface 2.940 79 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity iin) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) 5.4 250 0.0400 0.8 Description Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 3S: Surface Drainage to ROW Runoff = 0.30 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af, Depth= 0.66" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 0.150 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.200 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.350 58 Weighted Average 20032566 -PROPOSED -10 -YR -03-12-11 Type 1124 -hr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Page 2 HydroCADO 6. 10 s/n 002351 @ 1986-2002 Applied Microcomputer Systems 1/6/2004 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description min (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.9 290 0.0276 0.4 Lag/CN Method, Pond 1P: POND A Inflow Area = 2.940 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.96" Inflow = 11.04 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.480 of Outflow = 0.46 cfs @ 13.53 hrs, Volume= 0.201 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 93.9 min Primary = 0.46 cfs @ 13.53 hrs, Volume= 0.201 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 999.39' Surf.Area= 10,775 sf Storage= 13,654 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 230.9 min calculated for 0.201 of (42% of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 998.00 7,353 0 0 1,000.00 12,272 19,625 19,625 1,002.00 17,873 30,145 49,770 Primary OutFlow Max=0.46 cfs @ 13.53 hrs HW=999.39' (Free Discharge) t-1=Culvert (Controls 0.46 cfs) # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 999.00' 12.0" x 40.0' long Culvert RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Outlet Invert= 998.80' S= 0.0050'/' n=0.013 Cc= 0.900 0 0 20032566 -PROPOSED -100 -YR -03-12-11 Type // 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Page 1 HydroCADO 6.10 s/n 002351 @ 1986-2002 Applied Microcomputer Svstems 1/6/2004 Subcatchment 1S: Rear -yard Drainage to North Runoff = 5.74 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.338 af, Depth= 1.73" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 1.510 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.680 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.160 98 Impervious Surface 2.350 60 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 14.1 400 0.0350 0.5 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 2S: Drainage to Pond Runoff = 18.80 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.838 af, Depth= 3.42" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.040 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 1.440 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1.460 98 Impervious Surface 2.940 79 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity iin) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) 5.4 250 0.0400 0.8 Description Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 3S: Surface Drainage to ROW Runoff = 0.81 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.046 af, Depth= 1.57' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.150 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.200 55 Woods, Good, HSG B 0.350 58 Weighted Average 0 20032566 -PROPOSED -100 -YR -03-12-11 Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. HydroCAD(D 6.10 s/n 002351 0 1986-2002 Applied Microc Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 12.9 290 0.0276 0.4 Lag/CN Method, Pond 1P: POND A Type 11 24 -hr Rainfall=6.00" Page 2 Inflow Area = 2.940 ac, Inflow Depth = 3.42" Inflow = 18.80 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.838 of Outflow = 2.41 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.546 af, Atten= 87%, Lag= 17.5 min Primary = 2.41 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.546 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 1,000.03' Surf.Area= 12,368 sf Storage= 20,141 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 159.9 min calculated for 0.544 of (65% of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 998.00 7,353 0 0 1,000.00 12,272 19,625 19,625 1,002.00 17,873 30,145 49,770 Primary OutFlow Max=2.41 cfs @ 12.25 hrs HW=1,000.03' (Free Discharge) L1=Culvert (Controls 2.41 cfs) # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 999.00' 12.0" x 40.0' long Culvert RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Outlet Invert= 998.80' S=0.0050? n=0.013 Cc= 0.900 watershed area acres 2.94 pervious curve number - 61 from SCS tables, for AMC=2 impervious fraction 0.6 design storm inches 2.5 VLAWMO criterion = 2.5 inches antecedent moisture cond. 2 (1,2,or 3), VLAWMO criterion = 2 pond maximum depth feet 3 <= 10 ft bench width be feet 0 >= loft bench slope be ft/ft 4 >= 10 ft horiz / It vertical side slope ab ft/ft 4 >= 3 ft horiz / ft vertical pond shape factor 1 1=triangle,2= rectangle, 3=ellipse length/width ratio 1 >= 3 top length c feet 130.00 adjust to achieve target volume OUTPUT VARIABLE UNITS VALUE target volume acre-ft 0.39 = design storm runoff volume design volume acre-ft 0.43 should be >= target volume design mean depth feet 2.19 VLAWMO criterion >= 4 feet design surface area acres 0.19 pond / watershed area = 6.6% design storm runoff inches 1.58 runoff coefficient = 63.1% maximum retention inches 6.39 for pervious portion of watershed CONTOUR DIMENSIONBvase = Pond A Design Geometry = TRIANGLE TOP BENCH BOTTOM contour C B A TOTAL elevation feet 0.0 0.0 -3.0 depth feet 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 maximum length feet 130.0 130.0 91.2 130.0 maximum width feet 130.0 130.0 91.2 130.0 surface area feetA2 8450 8450 4156 8450 surface area acres 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.19 increm. volume feetA3 0 18532 18532 increm. volume ydA3 0 686 686 increm. volume ac-ft 0.00 0.43 0.43 centroid offset ft 0.0 0.0 7.4 outflow slope leng. ft 0.0 12.0 inflow slope length ft 0.0 26.8 outflow slope be ft-h/ft-v #DIV/0! 4.0 inflow slope ab ft-h/ft-v #DIV/0! 8.9 PROJECT TITLIO Highlands of Bluff Creek PROJECT NO.: 2003-2566 DESIGNED BY: Curtis Neft DESIGNED DATE: Janurary 6, 2004 Sediment Pond Station Contour Distance Feet Sq. Ft. Area Ac. Area Ac -ft Storage Cunun. Storage 4916 2.SQt:'.0 0.06674 2 0.227783 0.227783 998 7,353.00 0.1688;1 2 0.445734 0.673517 1000 12,272.01) 0.28173 2 0.688017 1.361534 1002 17,873.00 0.4103: TOTAL 1.36153 Westwood Professional Service ' c. • PLANNING • ENGINEERING - SURVEYING TRANSMITTAL CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED DEC 1 Date: December 17, 2003 7 2003 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT To: Bob Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 From: Ed Hasek Regarding: Plowshares /McAllister - Highlands of Bluff Creek W 7599 Anagram Driw Eden Prairie, NIN 55344 HBe: 952-937-5150 Fax: 952-937-5822 Toll fee: 1488-937-5150 E-mail: WPSCWe Oodi,. Qm TWIN CITIES/METRO ST. CLOUD BRAINERD Proj. No.: Items: 20032566 No Description 16 sets of full sized plans 16 reduced sets 1 8 1/2 X 11 set 1 Preliminary Storm Water Calc's Purpose: Remarks: For your approval I believe we have achieved all that we discussed in our last several meetings. We would like to carry this application forward, so please let Todd Know immediately if additional information is required at this time (I will be gone from 12/20 through New Years Day). Todd Simnina — 361-0832 Delivery: Hand Deliver Copy to: file; is n 19n1 teFut"Today **01972 Westwood Professional Service. PLANNING .ENGINEERING .SURVEYING MEMORANDUM To: Bob Generous, Planner, City of Chanhassen From: Ed Hasek Date: December 17, 2003 Plowshares - Highlands of Re: Bluff Creek 40 W CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED 7599 Ara9ram Drive DEC 17 2003 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: 952-937-5150 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT F= 952-937-S822 Toll free: 1-888.937-5150 E-mail wpseweAwoodps.rom TWIN CMESIMETRO ST. CLOUD BRAINERD Project No.: 20032566 On behalf of Plowshare Development LLC we are pleased to submit this application for the development of the Highlands of Bluff Creek as a residential townhome neighborhood. With this application we are requesting approval for a comprehensive plan amendment, PUD, site plan review, CUP, subdivision, and variance for the construction of a private street and 18 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of land that includes two small parcels currently owned by the City (.34 ac.), and Pulte Homes (.10 ac.). The parcel is located in the northeast corner of Highway 41 and West 781h Street. EXISTING CONDITIONS A hobby farm that includes a home, bam, and several out buildings currently occupies the property. With the construction of West 78th Street access was change from Highway 41 to a curb cut on 78'h Street. The property lies within the HC -2 Overlay District, and partially within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The approximate BCOD boundaries (primary and secondary) have been located both on the plans and in the field. These boundaries have been adjusted as directed by staff, and approximately 30% of the site is currently within the BCOD primary zone. Roughly 42% of the site is covered by the canopy of trees that include oak, maple, basswood, elm, pine and spruce species, the majority of which are located on the north half of the property that slopes to the north and to Bluff Creek. A tree survey has been completed, and 106 significant trees were located and tagged. Field notes indicate that 14% of the significant trees are diseased or damaged, which is not unusual for a mature oak -maple -basswood woodland. Soils found on the property are generally loamy and of the Kilkenny -Lester soils series, well drained, 0 to 10% slopes, and suited to typical residential construction practices. Slopes ranging to 40 % exist along the west and south edges of the site as back -slopes down to the roadways created when Highway 41 and West 78h Street were constructed. The property drains in all directions from a high point of elevation 1011 feet located just west of the existing home- The south two-thirds of the site is generally flat and sits 2 to 8 feet above 78th Street. Public utilities are available to the property from West 78th Street and Century Trail. A regional storm pond is located to the southeast and along Highway 5 at Century Boulevard. The Arboretum Village subdivision (zoned PUDR) abuts the parcel on the south (6 -unit structures) and east (2, 3, and 4 unit townhomes) sides. Highway 41 separates the site from a single-family home to the west, and Bluff Creek is located to the north. Des,"ng the Rfiae TO&W.-skre 1972 Page 2 of 3 • • December 17, 2003 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Plowshares Development LLC is proposing the development of 18 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of property to a density of 3.18 units per acre. Buildings will vary from 2 to 3 homes in size, and will have full, lookout, or walkout basements. Each home is of single story construction with a full basement and approximately 2,700 s.f. of living area possible. Attached 2 car garages are 480 s.f. in area. The site will be accessed by a single 31 -foot back-to-back private street built to City standards with a 5 - foot wide sidewalk located on one side of the street (adjacent to the curb). A 6 -foot sidewalk will also be constructed along West 7e Street to link Century Trail to Highway 41. Each home will have a two -car garage, and guest parking (2.5 spaces per home) will be provided in the driveways and on one side of the private street. Storm water that is collected from impervious surfaces (approximately 1.5 acres) will be routed to a pond located in the south-east corner of the site. Project utilities will connect to existing stubs in 78`h Street and Century Trail. Each home will be individually connected to all utilities. Approximately 27% (.75 ac.) of the existing tree canopy will be removed for the construction of roads, driveways, homes, and associated grading. Outlot A (proposed as the Primary BCOD Zone in the north part of the property) will be preserved by a Conservation Easement. Care will be taken to preserve additional trees and associated tree canopy at the time of construction. An area of existing trees and canopy (and associated topography) along Highway 41 will also be preserved to provide separation and screening from this arterial roadway. Best Management Practices, and the standards and specifications established in the City Ordinances will be adhered to to reduce any additional tree losses. As indicated previously, the north portion of the site will be preserved in the BCOD. A variance to allow construction to 15 feet from the primary zone is requested in order to place as much of the site in the BCOD as possible. The proposed BCOD will preserve the most native and significant area of woodlands and slope on the site. Approximately 4,000 s.f. of the primary zone will be removed, and approximately 4,700 s.f. of area will be added and reforested with 16 native species trees planted roughly 15 feet on center. Landscaping will be concentrated as additional screening along Highway 41 and West 78" street. A 2 to 6 foot berm along West 78th (at Highway 41) will further increase screening in this area. A foundation planting plant will provide additional landscape interest and detailing at the entry and front fagade of each home. We have provide staff with the necessary sketch development plan (meeting all of the ordinance requirements) to support the construction of 18 homes on this site. The sketch plan yielded an average of 11,400 s.f. per unit and included a pubic cul-de-sac. The average area per unit for the proposed plan is 12,500 s.f. per home with a private street built to city standards. The proposed 2 and 3 unit buildings are consistent with surrounding development (2, 3, 4, and 6 unit buildings) in Arboretum Village, and provide a reasonable transition of land use and density adjacent to Highway 41. The inclusion of three unit buildings also provides the housing market in this area with an interior unit at a slightly different price point. The front entry/porch is recessed from the front of the building by 6 to 8 feet to break up the front facade, and a porch and deck at the rear of each home Designing the future today... M I N N E A P O L I S S T. C L O U D Page 3 of 3 . • December 17, 2003 provides 10 feet of relief along the back of the structures. The use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection will provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building. The requirements for storm water ponding, and associated requirements for floor elevations above anticipated water levels, dictates that the buidings on this site be kept relatively high. The pond is located along West 78'" to preserve the BCOD. If the pond were to be constructed in the BCOD (as is allowed), approximately 1 acre of tree canopy, and an additional 20 to 25 significant trees would be removed from the site. We appreciate the opportunity that we have had in working with City planning, engineering, and other staff to bring this project forward for your review. We have had occasion to meet with the various departments to identify and work through issues, and have responded by continuing to refine and rework the development plans. We are extremely excited about this project and look forward to working with the City of Chanhassen and it staff toward the successful completion of the Highlands of Bluff Creek. Designing the future today... M I N N E A P O L I S - S T. C L O U D PRELIMINARY STORM WATER RUNOFF CALCULATIONS McAllister Parcel for: Prepared by: Chanhassen, MN Plowshares Development, LLC 1851 Lake Drive West Chanhassen, MN 55317 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone (952) 937-5150, Fax (952) 937-5822 December 11. 2003 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Project # 20032566 RECEIVED DEC 1 7 2003 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 0 SUMMARY r -I The attached storm water runoff and ponding calculations are based on Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) and The Soil Conservation Service Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method incorporated into the software program HydroCAD ver 6.10. RATE CONTROL An evaluation was made for both the pre -development and post -development peak runoff rates for the entire site. By using a 8" Orifice outlet for Pond A the peak runoff rates were within rate control requirements. Following is a table summarizing pre -development and post -development peak runoff rates for the 10 -year, and 100 -year storms: PEAK RUNOFF RATES Pre -Development Post -Development Drainage 10 yr (cfs) 100 yr (cfs) 10 yr (cfs) 100 yr (cfs) North 2.33 1 6.35 2.25 5.67 78 St. 2.64 6.18 1.73 3.03 Totals 4.97 12.53 3.98 8.70 Following is a table summarizing the rate control pond system: Pond Drainage NWL Dead 100 -yr Live 100 -yr Area(acre) (feet) Storage HWL Storage Inflow (acre-feet) (feet) (acre-feet) (cfs) 100 -yr Overflow Discharge Elevation (cfs) (feet) =® .. ; ® • • • • ®®®® I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. IZ-1?•o3 Date * WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. (952) 937-5150 Westwood Professional ServicesTnc. PLANNING - ENGINEERING •SURVEYING TRANSMITTAL Date: December 5, 2003 To: Bob Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 From: Ed Hasek Regarding: Plowshares / McAllister Property (2nd Application) . 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phw :951-937-SISO Fax 952-937-5872 Toll free: 1-888.937-5150 E-mail: wps6westwoocipscom TWIN CMESNETRO 5r. CLOUD NUUNERD Proj. No.: 20032566 Items: No Description 26 folded sets of plans 1 Narrative memo dated Dec. 4, 2003 1 application form and fee 1 reuced set of plaans Purpose: For your approval Remarks: Please review this information as soon as possible and let me know immediately if additional information will be required at this time. Building Plans and Perspective Sketches were submitted with the first application, and have not been included again at this time. With this application we are requesting the City to prepare the necessary Property Owner List for legal notification. The fee has been included with the application. Todd Simning — 361-0832 Ed Hasek — 937-5150 Delivery: Hand Deliver Copy to: file; todd simning Designing the FutureToday..since 1972 Westwood Professional ServicesTnc. PLANNING• ENGINEERING - SURVEYING MEMORANDUM To: Bob Generous, Planner, City of Chanhassen From: Ed Hasek Date: December 4, 2003 Plowshares - McAllister Re: Property Development Project No.: 20032566 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: 952-937-5750 Fax 952-937-5822 Toll free: 1-888-937-5150 E-mail: wpsOwestwoodps.com TWIN CmESlMETRO ST. CLOUD BRAINERD On behalf of Plowshare Development LLC we are pleased to submit this application for the development of the McAllister property as a residential townhome neighborhood. With this application we are requesting approval for a comprehensive plan amendment, PUD, site plan review, CUP, subdivision, and variance for the construction of a private street and 19 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of land that includes two small parcels currently owned by the City (.34 ac.), and Pulte Homes (.10 ac.). The parcel is located in the northeast corner of Highway 41 and West 78th Street. EXISTING CONDITIONS A hobby farm that includes a home, barn, and several out buildings currently occupies the property. With the construction of West 78`h Street access was change from Highway 41 to a curb cut on 781h Street. The property lies within the HC -2 Overlay District, and partially within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The approximate BCOD boundaries (primary and secondary) have been located both on the plans and in the field. Approximately 40% of the site is currently within the BCOD. Roughly 42% of the site is covered by the canopy of trees that include oak, maple, basswood, elm, pine and spruce species, the majority of which are located on the north half of the property that slopes to the north and to Bluff Creek. A tree survey has been completed, and 106 significant trees were located and tagged. Field notes indicate that 14% of the significant trees are diseased or damaged, which is not unusual for a mature oak -maple -basswood woodland. Soils found on the property are generally loamy and of the Kilkenny -Lester soils series, well drained, 0 to 10% slopes, and suited to typical residential construction practices. Slopes ranging to 40 % exist along the west and south edges of the site as back -slopes down to the roadways created when Highway 41 and West 78th Street were constructed. The property drains in all directions from a high point of elevation 1011 feet located just west of the existing home. The south two-thirds of the site is generally flat and sits 2 to 8 feet above 78th Street. Public utilities are available to the property from West 78th Street and Century Trail. A regional storm pond is located to the southeast and along Highway 5 at Century Boulevard. The Arboretum Village subdivision (zoned PUDR) abuts the parcel on the south and east sides. Highway 41 separates the site from a single-family home to the west, and Bluff Creek is located to the north. Designing Use Future Today.Ance 1972 9 0 __A Page 2 of 2 • • December 4, 2003 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Plowshares Development LLC is proposing the development of 18 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of property to a density of 3.18 units per acre. Buildings will vary from 3 to 4 homes in size, and will have full, lookout, or walkout basements. Each home is of single story construction with a full basement and approximately 2,700 s.f. of living area possible. Attached 2 car garages are 480 s.f. in area. The site will be accessed by a single 31 -foot back-to-back private street built to City standards with a 5 - foot wide sidewalk located on one side of the street (adjacent to the curb). A 6 -foot sidewalk will also be constructed along West 78`" Street to link Century Trail to Highway 41. Each home will have a two -car garage, and guest parking (2.5 spaces per home) will be provided in the driveways and on one side of the private street. Storm water that is collected from impervious surfaces (approximately 1.5 acres) will be routed through existing infrastructure to the reghional pond at Century Boulevard and Highway 5. Project utilities will connect to existing stubs in 78 Street and Century Trail. Each home will be individually connected to all utilities. Approximately 25% (.68 ac.) of the existing tree canopy will be removed for the construction of roads, driveways, homes, and associated grading. Outlot A (proposed as the Primary BCOD Zone in the north part of the property) will be preserved by a Conservation Easement. Care will be taken to preserve additional trees and associated tree canopy at the time of construction. Best Management Practices, and the standards and specifications established in the City Ordinances will be adhered to to reduce any additional tree losses. As indicated previously, the north portion of the site will be preserved in the BCOD. A variance to allow construction to 15 feet from the primary zone is requested in order to place as much of the site in the BCOD as possible. The proposed BCOD will preserve the most native and significant area of woodlands and slope on the site. Landscaping will be concentrated as additional screening along Highway 41 and West 78s' street. A 2 to 6 foot berm along West 78th (at Highway 41) will further increase screening in this area. A foundation planting plant will provide additional detailing at the entry and front fagade of each home. We appreciate the opportunity that we have had in working with City planning, engineering, and other staff to bring this project forward for your review. We have had occasion to meet with the various departments to identified and work through issues, and to respond by further refining the development plans. We are extremely excited about this project and look forward to working with the City of Chanhassen and it staff toward the successful completion of this new development. Designing the future today... M I N N E A P O L I S S T. C L O U D is • } } }f F ppppr}p eoeB ee ce. eeoii i lj!ii i HI R11 i y oe04 1.•0a®>1 aeae®ea i.. i I q s N U d 0 I -\ • • _ iL I� N (� � � it ; � � • <i I q s N U d 0 I -\ • • _ iL I� N ►i V a a (� � � it ; � � • ►i V a a a �p x: J 4! a as t x 9 MRS; e? RS; Mild., °j-�Lage I Y ;pIll! Y8 Y S Y U zES oq!$ O EB C Et - Gy f i U �4 7�ti?ga� �b 4 '�� S .•� � .� a � � N O y U w H Ip I i ��I o - \ \\ ```�. �\ / / •'l �I 1 �J I •1�1 J 111 \\\ ``�x•� / ``��.\ I � • SII •1 r p p 8 F.ab3�t p Gila 9° fddS - E'sQq RN 6 m iiA S sE F3Y¢ 8 U, p p 3 gyp � 8 y� i S$ x{FYg E f` R p �O 11YS_pFpF_Ef69$p9e 9•Eg�g �1 r:'�`E p Ek � z E�iyfF:! 4 €1 p it A E O 3i6rgb g:! HUM w €C Y tioE is gg b t3 FEEYb1. eae pppp$ t E �4 ea apIs6� dr 8 4 G p6i'}� �Y sYi b i 3b gzF$ 3 3`a 3 >; I�Jc�s� I 1 I / \ 5 / ---------------- iN .\ f b .'. 2 O f U 7 Q F z 2 O U R O LL 0 O z c rr i 9 a4. FCa LId 0x® Y \,I,—'V A A I \\ u a �ME o Y \,I,—'V A A I \\ u a € t€ItI ! I I € 6 I€ t it It I t t I It t e i--ie-caeee--avagq:ax:ac ea c-a:a::eaeo:`aeec^e^x:ce=evexa^- _ :a:::::::: :c: ss':': ss' E_}..ES eat 5l } 30 u ttttttttn tt tt!!!!!!}!!!I!!!t!ltmnttttnttll}}!!I!!!!I!!i!i!I!1!!}IP.!!!lliilli! €tIIIIII II 59 •ajallil la!!itilt!tt}!elltitilt+iii!!}!}!}};Iillt'Ij€?!!!I}tflttelltltlttt€1,tttaleltititititttl.::t:ttt::;: :,i 1 � '+e+�e€lie+!}l7}p}}}}Itolllll!!Ilii!!I!}lllll!}!.l-ee�etlltljljtl}IIt!}}ll!liil!lleellle/i6itje 4�{ei}I!!!! @!! 8ff �-=€t€€€€€PIIIIIts IIllipIII€€€e€€€€€€€€€tt€t€its €t9 Fps II ENN€€€€` @Bt€§494499 s39oa M. F aF \ d _ Y � d a a Map Print Output 0 0 Page 1 of 1 Carver County GIS Mapping Application q�p X10 - Elm a m s �i m lli Y�F. ll■i/i !/// 11 i/!!/RON !!! !!/ /' lii/!!//iii//iiiiii■■//!/ //illi/i!i///iii!/!/!/■ ai ■■■iii 9601�10 ■/llii olli r/t e'- ill■/i/lilllllll iii■■iii■ill it re ilNii/lil "s`•' Hl/ili116,i lit ' A _ k !c4 JisNA , .,, Nap Created by Cary rCwnty t75 OFtoe 111 _ t Legend o- ---� Map Created on: 11-4-2003 wwp y. Carver ,•• `" County w„i1e�V300, This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Carver County is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. http://156.99.124.167/website/pareel_intemet_to map.asp 11/4/2003 Westwood Professional ServiceslRc. PLANNING. ENGINEERING .SURVEYING TRANSMITTAL Date: October 31, 2003 To: Bob Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 From: Ed Hasek Regarding: Proj. No.: Plowshares / McAllister Property 20032566 Items: No Description 26 sets of folded plans 26 sets of 11"X17" building plans and perspective 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: 952-937-5150 Fax: 952-937-5822 Toll free: 1-888-937-5150 E-mail: wps®westwoodps.com TWIN CITIESWETRO ST. CLOUD BRAINERD 1 narrative memo, wetland/no loss memo, application form/fee, legal description 1 set of 6 1/2"X11" plans Purpose: As you requested Remarks: Please review this information and let me know immediately if any additional information will be required. We anticipate a December Planning Commission meeting with Council to follow. We are reauestino that the City prepare the necessary property owner list for notification. The fee has been included with the application. Ed Hasek — 952-937-5150 Delivery: Hand Deliver Copy to: file; todd Designing the Future Today...slrce 1972 Westwood Professional Services,T lac. . ILANNINGENGINEERING SURVEYING 7599 Anagram Drive MEMORANDUM Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: 952-937-5150 Fax 952-937-5822 Toll free: 1888-937-5150 To: Bob Generous, Planner, City of Chanhassen E-mail: wps0westwoodps.com From: Ed Hasek TWIN cmE51NETRO Date: October 31, 2003 ST. CLOUD Plowshares - McAllister BR,vNERD Re: Property Development Project No.: 20032566 On behalf of Plowshare Development LLC we are pleased to submit our application for the development of the McAllister property as a residential townhome neighborhood. With this application we are requesting approval for rezoning, site plan review, CUP, and preliminary plat approval for the construction of a private street and 19 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of land that includes two small parcels currently owned by the City (.34 ac.), and Pulte Homes (.10 ac.). The parcel is located in the northeast corner of Highway 41 and west 781h Street. EXISTING CONDITIONS A hobby farm that includes a home, barn, and several out buildings currently occupies the property. With the construction of West 78 In street access was change from Highway 41 to a curb cut on 78th Street. The property lies within the HC2 Overlay District, and partially within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The approximate BCOD boundaries (primary and secondary) have been located both on the plans and in the field. Approximately 40% of the site is currently within the BCOD. Roughly 42% of the site is covered by the canopy of trees that include oak, maple, basswood, elm, pine and spruce species, the majority of which are located on the north half of the property that slopes to the north and to Bluff Creek. A tree survey has been completed, and 106 significant trees were located and tagged. Field notes indicate that 14% of the significant trees are diseased or damaged, which is not unusual for a mature oak -maple -basswood woodland. Soils found on the property are generally loamy and of the Kilkenny -Lester soils series, well drained, 0 to 10% slopes, and suited to typical residential construction practices. Slopes ranging to 40 % exist along the west and south edges of the site as back -slopes down to the roadways created when Highway 41 and West 78th Street were constructed. The property drains in all directions from a high point of elevation 1011 feet located just west of the existing home. The south two-thirds of the site is generally flat and sits 2 to 6 feet above 781h Street. Public utilities are available to the property from West 78th Street and Century Trail. A regional storm pond is located to the southeast and along Highway 5. The Arboretum Village subdivision (zoned PUDR) abuts the parcel on the south and east sides. Highway 41 separates the site from a single-family home to the west, and Bluff Creek is located to the north. Designing the FYwre Today...since 1972 Page 2 of 2 0 0 October 31, 2003 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Plowshares Development LLC is proposing the development of 19 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of property to a density of 3.36 units per acre. Buildings will vary from 2 to 4 units in size, and will have full, lookout, or walkout basements. The homes are of single story construction with a basement and approximately 2,700 s.f. of living area possible. The homes will be accessed by a 31 -foot back-to-back looped private street built to City standards with a 5 -foot wide sidewalk located on the interior of the loop (adjacent to the curb). Each home has a two -car garage, and guest parking (3 spaces per home) will be provided in the driveways and on one side of the private street. Storm water that is collected from impervious development (approximately 1.7 acres) will be routed to a pond located in the southeast corner of the site in Outlot C. It will then be released into the regional pond at a predetermined rate. The storm pond overflow will use an existing drainage swale located at the east edge of the property. Project utilities will connect to existing stubs in 78th Street and Century Trail. Each home will be individually connected to all utilities. Approximately 35% (.97 ac.) of the existing tree canopy will be removed for the construction of roads, driveways, homes, and associated grading. Several specimen trees located more central to the site will be preserved, and Outlot A (proposed as park dedication) in the southwest comer of the property will also be preserved. Care will be taken to preserve additional trees and associated tree canopy at the time of construction. Best Management Practices and the standards and specifications established in the City Ordinances will also be adhered to to reduce attrition and additional tree losses. As indicated previously, Outlot A (.66 ac.) is proposed to be dedicated as park. In addition, the north portion of the site will be preserved in the BCD District. The actual location of the BCOD will have to be determined and established in the field. Outlot B (.19 ac.) central to the project will be a common open space maintained by an association established for the homeowners within the development. Outlot C (.40 ac.) will be the location of a storm pond. Landscaping will be concentrated as additional screening along Highway 41, and along public and private streets. A foundation planting plant will provide additional detailing at the entry and front facade of each home. We look forward to working with the City of Chanhassen and it staff toward the successful development of this new project. Designing the future today... M I N N E A P O L I S S T. C L O U D Westwood Professional Services, Inc. PLANNING - ENGINEERING. SURVEYING MEMORANDUM RECEIVED JUL 3 1 2003 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DATE: July 30, 2003 TO: Ms. Lori Haak, City of Chanhassen 690 Center City Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147 CC: Todd Simning, Plowshares 1851 Lake Drive West Suite 550 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Ed Hasek, Westwood Professional Services, Inc. FROM: Genevieve Bolling, Environmental Scientist N 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55341 Phare: 952-937-5150 Fax952-937-5822 Toll free: 1-888-937-5150 E-mail: vvps@vvestvvoodps.com TWIN CITIES/METRO ST. CLOUD BRAINERD Ref: 20032566.00 RE: Request for Concurrence with a No Wetlands Determination from the City of Chanhassen for the Plowshares/McAllister Property, located in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4, Section 9, T1 16N, R23W, City of Chanhassen, Carver County Minnesota We are writing to request concurrence with a No Wetlands Determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (WCA). We understand that the City of Chanhassen is the Local Government Unit (LGU) responsible for administering the WCA. For the reasons explained in this report, we submit that the site does not contain jurisdictional wetlands. SITE DESCRIPTION Westwood Professional Services, Inc. conducted a field review on July 22 and 24, 2003 to determine if wetlands exist on the Plowshares/McAllister property. The 6.08 -acre parcel is located north of West 78d, Street and east of Carver County Road 41 in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota (Exhibit 1). Currently the site has one residence on roughly the southern half of the property, which consists of a single-family home, gravel driveway, manicured lawn, two bams that house pigs, rabbits, sheep, and horses, and a horse pasture. The northern half is undeveloped woodland with steep slopes. Surrounding land use consists of newly constructed residential development to the east and south, wetland associated with Bluff Creek to the north, and woodland to the west. This determination was made in conformance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, 1987). PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project consists of medium density residential development. Access to the site will be from West 78th Street. The proposed project will require the extension of existing sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer facilities. MAPPING Prior to visiting the site, Westwood reviewed USGS topographic mapping (Exhibit 1), National Wetlands Inventory mapping (NWL 1989) (Exhibit 2), the Soil Survey of Carver County, Minnesota (USDA, 1989) (Exhibit 3), and the DNR Public Waters and Wetlands Inventory for Carver County (Minnesota DNR, 1986) to identify potential wetlands on the site. The USGS, NWI and DNR Protected Waters maps do Designing the F=m Today.. since 1972 Memorandum — Wetland Determination for Plowshares/McAllister Property July 28, 2003 Paue 2 not identify any wetlands or watercourses on the property. The Soil Survey shows Lester -Kilkenny loams (6-12% slopes) and Kilkenny -Lester loams (2-6% slopes) as the soil types on the property. According to the NRCS Hydric Soils of Minnesota (1995), these soil types do not meet hydric soils criteria. SITE CHARACTERISTICS Predominant plant communities include manicured lawn, dominated by Kentucky bluegrass (FAC-), covering approximately one-third of the property. The remaining two-thirds is mostly maple/basswood forest dominated by sugar maple (FACU), American basswood (FACU), box elder (FACW-), European red elderberry (FACU) and common buckthorn (FAC-). Other trees species noted include red oak (FACU), bur oak (FAC-), and white pine (FACU). No indicators of wetland hydrology such as inundation, soil saturation, drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposits, or watermarks were observed on the site. The site slopes and drains freely to the north, with no substantial depressions within the property boundaries. Wetland associated with Bluff Creek exists at the toe of the slope, approximately 300 feet north of the property line. The hydric soil mapping unit associated with the wetland, Houghton and Muskego soils, lies outside the property boundary. CONCLUSIONS Westwood Professional Services, Inc. conducted a wetland determination on July 22 and 24, 2003. Based on the above site characteristics and mapping, this site does not contain jurisdictional wetland. The field investigation revealed that indicators of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation are not present on the site. This is consistent with the NWI, DNR Public Waters and Wetlands, and Soil Survey mapping. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. is requesting that the City of Chanhassen, as the Local Government Unit for the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), provide written confirmation that there are no jurisdictional wetlands present on the site. If you have questions or need additional information before responding to this memo, please call me at (952) 906-7488. W Westwood Professional Services, Inc. (952) 937-5150 Data Soume(s): USGS DRG (Excelsior Quad, revised 1997: Shakoose Quad. revised 19931 N Legend Project Boundary 0 2000, 4 O Feet 0 o Date: 07/29/20M Wastv+eed Professional Services, Inc. ".Plowshare/McAllister 7599 Anagram Drive Site Location and Eden Prairie, MN 55344 957-937-5150 e Pron Property USGS Topography Chanhassen, Minnesota Exhibit 1 2-003 Services, Inc _J • ,it s - Q ,r r - '. i 1 rr , r = 7.�f �• � ` s 1 i F AX 3 s Data Source(s): Aerials Express (2002), USFWS NWI (1989) Legend Q Project Boundary NWI Wetland Type 3 = Shallow Marsh WWestwood Professional Services, Inc 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 957-937-5150 N A 0 200 40 Feet Date: 07/29/2003 Plowshare/McAllister Property Chanhassen, Minnesota National Wetlands Inventory Mapping Exhibit 2 m x m m g N Westwood N Legend Soil Type Q Project Boundary KB Kilkenny-lester foams, 2-6% slopes Hydric Soils KC Lester-kilkenny loams, 6-12% slopes 0 200 400 Feet WWestwood Professional Services, Inc. 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 953-937-5150 Date: 07/29/2003 Plowshare/McAllister Property. Chanhassen, Minnesota Digital Soils Mapping Exhibit 3 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 OF (952) 227-1100 C��SSEI� Date: December 11, 2003 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Robert Generous, Senior Planner Subject: Request for a land Use Plan Amendment From Residential — Low Density to Residential — Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development Within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project Site Plan Review for an 18 -Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback Requirements on 6 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2; Located at 2930 West 78" Street (northeast corner of West 78" Street & Highway 4l); Plowshares Development, LLC; Susan McAllister Planning Case: LUPA 2003-3, CUP 2003-10, PUD 2003-3, SPR 2003-11 and VAR 2003-19 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on December 5, 2003. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on January 6, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your continents by no later than December 23, 2003. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation (3) 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Mediscorn 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other -MN Landscape Arboretum 14. ",NNESO' Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 August 10, 2004 Bob Generous Senior Planner Planning Department, City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Highlands of Bluff Creek Mn/DOT Review PO4-070 EasT-s-iae-OT-rFr-4t,iNorLnoi ra"' Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1008 Dear Mr. Generous: G AUG 1 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats, and has the following comments: ■ Please show the proposed Eastbound Left Turn lane from W 78`b on the plans, as discussed previously with the city. Please contact Ken Ljung in Mn/DOT's Design section at (651) 634-2113 for questions concerning this issue. Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit, ie., tree removal as indicated on sheet no. 2. Drainage and access permits have been issued on 6/23/2004 for this project. If any changes are made, permits will need to be notified. You can download and print permit forms from Mn/DOT's utility website at www.dot.state.nui.us/tecsup/utility. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Keith Van Wagner (651-582-1443), or Buck Craig (651-582-1447) of Mn/DOT's Metro Permits Section. The access control along TH 41 needs to be dedicated to the state. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to John Isackson of Mn/DOT's Right-of-way Section at 651-582-1273. ■ Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and An equal opportunity employer Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. ➢ Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (65 1) 582-1293. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Reviews Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 634-2083. ;mZerely, 16, uanita Voigt l/// Transportation Planner Copy: Roger Gustafson / Carver County Engineer Dwight K. Jelle / Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Todd Sinning / Plowshares Development, LLC CITY OF CIIMSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.221.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952 227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952227.1110 Park A Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1310 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227 1110 Web She www.ci.chanhassen.trn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Matt Saam, Assistant City EngineerA, DATE: June 3, 2004 / SUBJ: Final Plat Review for Highlands at Bluff Creek Project No. 04-12 Upon review of the plans dated May 27, 2004, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., I offer the following comments: GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL The plans propose to grade about 70% of the site for the new 16 -unit townhouse pads, a proposed private driveway ending with a partial hammer -head turnaround and a stormwater pond. The proposed grading will prepare the site for lookout and walkout lots. Drainage swales have been proposed along the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. The plan proposes a 5 -foot retaining wall along the south side of the proposed storm pond. A retaining wall of this size will require the wall to be designed by a professional structural engineer. The existing site drainage runs off site from the southwesterly quarter of the parcel to the east and north toward Bluff Creek. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the drainage from the street, the front yards, the rear yards of the lots adjacent to the pond and route the stormwater to a proposed NURP pond in the southeasterly comer of the site. The applicant is proposing an outlet control structure to control the discharge of water from the proposed pond. The overflow water will be conveyed via storm sewer to an existing storm sewer, along the south side of West 78`s Street, ending at a regional storm pond at the northwest quadrant of Century Boulevard and Highway 5. The amount of area that will still drain off site to the north toward Bluff Creek has been reduced. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for staff review. Staff has reviewed the calculations and found that they comply with City requirements. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gnal place to live, work, and play. Bob Generous June 3, 2004 Page 2 Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and Type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Century Trail; also, water service is available from West 78th Street. The applicant is proposing to extend the sewer line along the private street to service the proposed lots from an existing stub on the southeast corner of the parcel. The watermain is proposed to be looped through the site from West 78th Street and connect with the existing water stub at the southeast corner of the property. A minimum 30 -foot wide public easement will be required over the public sewer and watermain. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. The assessments for the BC-7/BC-8 project were based on the existing zoning for the site which contained one residential unit. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (16) than what the property had been assessed for, the additional 15 units (16-1=15) will be charged the sanitary sewer and water assessment unit that was in place for the BC-7/BC-8 project. The sanitary sewer assessment unit for the BC-7/BC-8 project was $300 and the water assessment unit was $1,694 for a total per unit cost of $1,994. Based on these rates, the total amount due payable to the City for the additional 15 units will be $29,910 (15 @ $1,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. Hook-up charges are for core utility system infrastructure, i.e. wells, lift stations, water towers, etc. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a pre -con meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will Bob Generous June 3, 2004 Page 3 have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District and MnDOT. STREETS/SITE ACCESS The plan shows a full access off of West 78t' Street along the south side of the parcel. The applicant is proposing a 26 -foot wide private street with concrete curb and gutter and a partial hammer -head turnaround. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshall. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design per City code. From an engineering and safety standpoint, the steepness required for the private street to access off of Century Trail would make the access less safe than if it came off of W. 78`' Street. This is because the required grade for the private street to access off of Century Trail is nearly 14%. The elevation of the private street within the site is set by the elevation of the townhomes on the south side of the street. The basement elevation of these townhomes must be three feet above the high water level (HWL) of the adjacent pond. This is a Watershed District requirement and it applies whether the townhomes are walk -out units or not. The applicant's engineer has provided a road design that shows a required street grade of nearly 14% for the private street to tie into Century Trail. The maximum private street grade allowed by City Code is 10%. For comparison purposes, the maximum allowable public street grade is 7%. The private street grade that would be required to access off of Century Trail would be nearly double the maximum public street grade. This raises obvious concerns with road icing and the ability of residential traffic to stop on a street this steep prior to the intersection of Century Trail. There are also non -engineering related concerns with moving the site access to Century Trail. Staff has received a letter from the resident who lives just north of the City owned park/open space land which the private street would go through to connect with Century Trail. This resident is opposed to having the private street connect with Century Trail. Also, in order for the private street to come off of Century Trail, the applicant would need to purchase a piece of park/open space land from the City. Staff has concerns with potentially selling off this property because it was originally dedicated as permanent open space to the City. Moving the roadway would bisect this open space and add traffic to an area that was meant to be permanent open space. The applicant has also expressed concern over the time it would take to negotiate a price for the land purchase. For the above reasons, staff does not feel that the access location to the site should be moved. Staff also took a second look at the proposed site access location off of W. 78`s Street. The proposed access is in the same location as the existing driveway Bob Generous June 3, 2004 Page 4 access to the property. The existing access was installed by MnDOT as part of the Highway 5 project and is located just east of the raised concrete median at the intersection of Highway 41 and W. 78th Street. The access was designed to provide full access to the property from either direction. The worst potential traffic conflict at the proposed access to the site would be the eastbound traffic attempting to tum left into the site and having to cross the westbound traffic lane during p.m. peak periods. MnDOT took traffic counts for the Highway 41/W.78"' Street intersection the week of April 12, 2004. Staff enlisted the services of a professional traffic engineer who evaluated potential left turn traffic conflicts into the site. Based on 16 townhomes, a conservative (high) estimate of traffic making a left turn into the development during the p.m. peak hour is 11 vehicles. The traffic counts indicate that the westbound p.m. peak hour traffic flow, which would be the conflict for the entering vehicles, is 30 vehicles. These numbers do not indicate any potential for operational problems with regard to access to the site. There will be approximately one vehicle every six minutes entering the site that could be potentially opposed by one vehicle every two minutes driving west past the site. It should also be pointed out that MnDOT has reviewed the plans for this development. The MnDOT comments have not stipulated any type of restriction on the W. 78th Street access to the site nor have they recommended the addition of a tum lane into the site. In summary, it does not appear that the existing traffic or the development -generated traffic will be great enough to require modifications to the proposed access location. RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION Staff is currently working with Westwood Church on concept plans for the extension of W. 78th Street, west of Highway 41. Because of the existing alignment of the Highway 41/W. 78th Street intersection on the east side of Highway 41 and the property line location of Westwood Church on the west side, the existing W. 78th Street intersection will need to be realigned to the north. Thi. will require an additional area of right-of-way in the southwest corner of the site to be dedicated to the City from the applicant on the final plat. This right-of-way dedication will not impact the proposed lots. The applicant has shown the additional right-of-way dedication on the final plat. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The proposed 5 -foot retaining wall must be designed by a registered structural engineer. c: Paul Oehme City Engineer/Public Works Director gAeng\projmtsWighlands at bluff aeek\fpr.dm From: Haak, Lori Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 3:06 PM To: Saam, Matt Subject: Highlands SWMP FEE WORKSHEET DATE June 2, 2004 CASE 04-01 PROJECT Highlands of Bluff Creek Site Area in Acres 6.52 Highway 41 ROW -0.86 Outlot A (BCOD) -2.39 Assessable area 3.27 WATER QUALITY WATER QUANTITY ZONING CLASSIFICATION Medium Density FEES Rate per Acre Acres Total $ 1,967.00 3.27 $ 6,432.09 Rate per Acre Acres Total $ 3,824.00 3.27 $ 12,504.48 CREDITS ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL PRICE PRICE Storm water pond acre$ 1,967.00 $ - Outlet structure each 1.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 SWMPFEE $ 18,936.57 SWMP CREDITS $ 2,500.00 TOTAL SWMP FEE $ 16,436.57 CITY OF MEMORANDUM CgANgASSEN TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner 7700 Market Boulevard FROM: Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PO Box 147 West 78`9 Street. The Council asked staff and the developer to take another look at Fax: 952.227.1170 Chanhassen, MN 55317 DATE: April 19, 2004 Administration basement elevation of these townhomes must be three feet above the high water level Fax 952227.1404 Phone: 952.227.1100 SUBJ: City Council Update for Highlands of Bluff Creek Fax:952227.1110 provided a road design that shows a required street grade of nearly 14% for the Land Use Review File No. 03-22 Building Inspection SITE ACCESS Phone: 952.227.1180 Century Trail. Since the March 22 Council meeting, staff has received a letter from Fax: 952.227.1190 At the March 22, 2004 City Council meeting, the Council tabled action on this Parer & Recreation development due to concerns over the safety of the proposed access to the site off of Engineering Phone: 952,227.1160 West 78`9 Street. The Council asked staff and the developer to take another look at Fax: 952.227.1170 relocating the proposed private street access off of Century Trail. Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 SITE ACCESS Fax: 952.227.1110 Century Trail. Since the March 22 Council meeting, staff has received a letter from Web Site From an engineering and safety standpoint, the steepness required for the private Parer & Recreation street to access off of Century Trail would make the access less safe than if it came Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952 227 off of W. 78th Street. This is because the required grade for the private street to access off of Century Trail is nearly 14%. The elevation of the private street within Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard the site is set by the elevation of the townhomes on the south side of the street. The Phone: 952.227.1400 basement elevation of these townhomes must be three feet above the high water level Fax 952227.1404 (HWL) of the adjacent pond. This is a Watershed District requirement and it applies whether the townhomes are walk -out units or not. The applicant's engineer has Planning & Natural Resources provided a road design that shows a required street grade of nearly 14% for the Phone: 952.227.1130 private street to tie into Century Trail. The maximum private street grade allowed by Fax: 952.2271110 City Code is 10%. For comparison purposes, the maximum allowable public street Public Worts grade is 7%. The private street grade that would be required to access off of Century 1591 Park Road Trail would be nearly double the maximum public street grade. This raises obvious Phone: 952.227.1300 concerns with road icing and the ability of residential traffic to stop on a street this Fax: 952.227 1310 steep prior to the intersection of Century Trail. Senior Center Phone: 952227.1125 There are also non -engineering related concerns with moving the site access to Fax: 952 227 1110 Century Trail. Since the March 22 Council meeting, staff has received a letter from Web Site the resident who lives just north of the City owned park/open space land which the www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us private street would go through to connect with Century Trail. This resident is opposed to having the private street connect with Century Trail. Also, in order for the private street to come off of Century Trail, the applicant would need to purchase a piece of park/open space land from the City. Staff has concerns with potentially selling off this property because it was originally dedicated as permanent open space to the City. Moving the roadway would bisect this open space and add traffic to an area that was meant to be permanent open space. The applicant has also expressed concern over the time it would take to negotiate a price for the land purchase. For the above reasons, staff does not feel that the access location to the site should be moved. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Bob Generous April 19, 2004 Page 2 Staff also took a second look at the proposed site access location off of W. 78`h Street. The proposed access is in the same location as the existing driveway access to the property. The existing access was installed by MnDOT as part of the Highway 5 project and is located just east of the raised concrete median at the intersection of Highway 41 and W. 78th Street. The access was designed to provide full access to the property from either direction. The worst potential traffic conflict at the proposed access to the site would be the eastbound traffic attempting to tum left into the site and having to cross the westbound traffic lane during p.m. peak periods. MnDOT took traffic counts for the highway 41/W.78`h Street intersection the week of April 12, 2004. Staff enlisted the services of a professional traffic engineer who evaluated potential left tum traffic conflicts into the site. Based on 16 townhomes, a conservative (high) estimate of traffic making a left tum into the development during the p.m. peak hour is 11 vehicles. The traffic counts indicate that the westbound p.m. peak hour traffic flow, which would be the conflict for the entering vehicles, is 30 vehicles. These numbers do not indicate any potential for operational problems with regard to access to the site. There will be approximately one vehicle every six minutes entering the site that could be potentially opposed by one vehicle every two minutes driving west past the site. It should also be pointed out that MnDOT has reviewed the plans for this development. The MnDOT comments have not stipulated any type of restriction on the W. 78th Street access to the site nor have they recommended the addition of a turn lane into the site. In summary, it does not appear that the existing traffic or the development -generated traffic will be great enough to require modifications to the proposed access location. RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION Staff is currently working with Westwood Church on concept plans for the extension of W. 78th Street, west of Highway 41. Because of the existing alignment of the Highway 41/W. 78h Street intersection on the east side of Highway 41 and the property line location of Westwood Church on the west side, the existing W. 78th Street intersection will need to be realigned to the north. This will require an additional area of right-of-way in the southwest comer of the site to be dedicated to the City from the applicant on the final plat. This right-of-way dedication will not impact the proposed lots. The exact size of the required right-of-way will be determined at the time of final plat. Jms c: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works gdeng\projects\mcallister parcel\council update 4-19-04.doc r 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227 1190 Engineering Phone: 952,227 1160 Fax 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone. 952227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952 227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 9522271130 Fax 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952 227.1110 Web Site wwwci chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: April 7, 2004 RE: Highlands of Bluff Creek (Planning Case 04-01) Upon review of plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. received April 2, 2004, I offer the following comments and recommendations: BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The northern portion of the site is enveloped by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Primary Zone extends to the edge of the canopy/tree line. City code requires that all structures maintain a 40 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 20 feet of the setback. Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 do not meet the required 40 -foot setback. Grading is proposed within the first 20 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone must be preserved. Due to site constraints, staff recommends a variance that would allow a 20 - foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary with no grading occurring within the first 10 feet of the setback. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time." The note regarding positive drainage should be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. Erosion and Sediment Control Riprap and geotextile fabric should be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-duty mono -mono silt fence with 4 -foot spacing of metal T -posts and The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 1" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light-duty silt fence should also be installed between the townhomes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area Steeper than 3:1 7 days is not actively being worked.) 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 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 facility. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. Surface Water Management Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on residential townhome development rates of $1,967/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 5.66 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $11,133. The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Medium density townhome developments have a connection charge of $3,824 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $21,644 for the proposed development. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $32,777. 3 Other Agencies 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all times." The note regarding positive drainage shall be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. Riprap and geotextile fabric shall be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light- duty silt fence shall also be installed between the townhomes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area Steeper than 3:1 7 days is not actively being worked.) 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 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 facility. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. The total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $32,777. v 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. MEMORANDUM TO: Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator / CITYOF Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist/ CHMUASSEN FROM: Kim Meuwissen, Planning Secretary 7700 Market Boulevard PBox 147 DATE: April 2, 2004 Chanhassen, sen, MN 55311 Administration SUBJ: Highlands of Bluff Creek — Planning File No. 04-01 Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Attached are updated plans for the referenced project received on April 2, 2004. Phone: 952227.1180 Please review and provide comments to Bob Generous by Friday, April 9, 2004 Fax: 952.221.7190 for inclusion in his staff report for the April 26, 2004 City Council meeting. Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Lori & Jill, could you please return your plans to me when you are finished with Fax: 952.227.1170 them? Thanks! Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 c: Bob Generous, Senior Planner Fax 952227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952 227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Counter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www ci.chanhassen mn.us gAplan\2004 planning cases\0401 -highlands of bluff creek\updated plans memo.doc The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses. winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play MEMORANDUM TO: Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer CITY OF Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist CHA NSEN FROM: Kim Meuwissen, Planning Secretary 7700 Market Boulevard PC Box 147 DATE: April 2, 2004 Chanhassen. MN 55317 Administration SUBJ: Highlands of Bluff Creek — Planning File No. 04-01 Phone: 952227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Attached are updated plans for the referenced project received on April 2, 2004. Phone: 952.227,1180 Please review and provide comments to Bob Generous by Friday, April 9, 2004 Fax: 952.227,1190 for inclusion in his staff report for the April 26, 2004 City Council meeting. Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952 227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227 1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952 227.1125 Fax 952.227.1110 Web Sue www ci.chanhassen mus Lori & Jill, could you please return your plans to me when you are finished with them? Thanks! O.tt 1 / wall 4 -ft sr wi,;^d ! CP LI) c: Bob Generous, Senior Planner g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-01 - highlands of bluff creek\updated plans memo.doc W SD FU01; }- ftoS Psi- W00%; +- 5VJMP �ee S The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Administration MEMORANDUM O CITYF Y OF SUBJ: City Council Update for McCallister Property CIIAN N TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner 7700 Market Boulevard FROM: Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineery PO Box 147 City. The City currently owns the open space property (Outlot G, Arboretum Chanhassen, MN 55317 DATE: March 15, 2004 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 SUBJ: City Council Update for McCallister Property Fax: 952.2271110 Land Use Review File No. 03-22 Building Inspections the applicant would need to purchase a piece of park/open space land from the Phone 952.227.1180 City. The City currently owns the open space property (Outlot G, Arboretum Fax: 952.227.1190 At the March 2, 2004 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, concerns were raised Engineering about the location of the proposed access to the site off of W. 78`9 Street. The PC Phone: 952 227.1160 asked staff to look at the possibility of moving the proposed private street access Fax: 952.2271170 so that it would come from the east off of Century Trail. Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Staff has since met with the applicant's engineer and reviewed the location of the Fax: 9522271110 proposed site access. In order for the private street to come off of Century Trail, Park s Recreation the applicant would need to purchase a piece of park/open space land from the Phone: 952.2271120 City. The City currently owns the open space property (Outlot G, Arboretum Fax: 952.2271110 Village plat) immediately to the east of the McCallister parcel. Staff has concerns Recreation center with potentially selling off this property because it was originally dedicated as 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952 227.1400 permanent open space to the City. Moving the roadway would bisect this open Fax: 952.227.1404 space and add traffic to an area that was meant to be permanent open space. The applicant has also expressed concern over the time it would take to negotiate a Planning 8 price for the land purchase. Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952 227.1110 From an engineering standpoint, it doesni appear that the private street can access off of Century Trail. The elevation of the private street within the site is set by Public works 1591 Park Road the elevation of the townhomes on the south side of the street. These townhomes Phone: 952.227.1300 must be three feet above the high water level (HWL) of the adjacent pond. The Fax: 952.227.1310 applicant's engineer has provided a road design that shows a required street grade senior Center of nearly 14% for the private street to tie into Century Trail. The maximum Phone: 952.227.1125 private street grade allowed by City Code is 10%. For the above reasons, staff Fax:952.227.1110 does not feel that the access location to the site should be moved. Web site www.d.chanhassen.mn.us jms c: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works Mak Sweidan, Engineer g:xengMattkmemostmccallister update 3-15-04.doc The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 0 CM OF MEMORANDUM HANHASSENTO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner II 7700 Market Boulevard FROM: Mak Sweidan,Engineer � My�Ol� PO Boa 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 DATE: February 23, 2004 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 SUBJ: Preliminary Site Plan Review for McAllister Parcel Land Use Review File No. 03-22 Building Inspections Phone: 952 227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227 1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park A Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.d.chanhassen.mn.us Upon review of the plans dated February 3, 2004, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., I offer the following comments: GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL The plans propose to grade about 70% of the site for the new 18 -unit townhouse pads, a proposed private driveway ending with a partial hammer -head turnaround and a stormwater pond. The proposed grading will prepare the site for lookout and walkout lots. Drainage swales have been proposed along the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. The plan proposes a 4 -foot retaining wall along the south side of the proposed storm pond. The existing site drainage runs off site from the southwesterly quarter of the parcel to the east and north toward Bluff Creek. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the drainage from the street, the front yards, the rear yards of Lots 7-18 and route the stormwater to a proposed NURP pond in the southeasterly comer of the site. The applicant is proposing an outlet control structure to control the discharge of water from the proposed pond. The over flow water will be conveyed via storm sewer to an existing storm sewer, along the south side of West 781' Street, ending at a regional storm pond at the northwest quad of Century Boulevard and Highway 5. The amount of area that will still drain off site to the north toward Bluff Creek has been reduced. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for staff review. Staff has reviewed the calculations and found that only minor modifications are needed. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 - year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Bob Generous February 23, 2004 Page 2 Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Century Trail; also water service is available from West 78th Street. The applicant is proposing to extend the sewer line along the private street to service the proposed lots from an existing stub on the southeast comer of the parcel. The watermain is proposed to be looped through the site from West 78th Street and connect with the existing water stub at the southeast comer of the property. A minimum 30 -foot wide public easement will be required over the public sewer and watermain. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. The assessments for the BC -7/13C-8 project were based on the existing zoning for the site with one residential unit. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (18) than what the property had been assessed for, the additional 17 units (18-1=17) will be charged the sanitary sewer and water assessment unit that was in place for the BC-7/BC-8 project. The sanitary sewer assessment unit for the BC- 7/BC-8 project was $300 and the water assessment unit was $1,694 for a total per unit cost of $2,994. Based on these rates, the total amount due payable to the City for the additional 17 units will be $50,898 (17 @ 2,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. Hook-up charges are for core utility system infrastructure, i.e. wells, lift stations, water towers, etc. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a pre -con meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District and MnDOT. Bob Generous February 23, 2004 Page 3 STREETS The plan shows a full access off of West 78th Street along the south side of the parcel. The applicant is proposing a 26 -foot wide private street with concrete curb and gutter and a partial hammer -head turnaround. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshall. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design per City code. OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 2. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The applicant must submit storm sewer sizing calculations for staff review. 3. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and Type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78t1 Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. 4. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat. 5. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 6. The total amount due payable to the City for the additional 17 units will be $50,898 (17 @ 2,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. 7. The applicant must be aware that the public sewer and watermain require a preconstruction meeting before the building permit issuance. 8. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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 Bob Generous February 23, 2004 Page 4 final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc. 9. Add the following City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2109, 2201, 3101, 3104, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300 and 5301. 10. Add a stop sign at the exit side of the access. 11. Add a street light at the access. 12. On the utility plan: a. Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. b. Remove/delete the last note. c. Call out water -main fittings. d. Show sanitary sewer pipe class & slope and water -main pipe class. e. Water -main shall be 8" PVC C-900 pipe. 13. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Last storm manhole discharging to the pond must be a 3 -foot sump. 14. On the preliminary plat show all existing and proposed drainage and utility easement. 15. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. 16. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshall. 17. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design. 18. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. c: Paul Oehme City Engineer/Public Works Director Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer. g: eng\proi=tsVmallister pmeRspri Am Web site 2. No burning permits will be issued for trees/shrub disposal. Any trees removed www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us must be removed or chipped on site. An additional fire hydrant will be required at the intersection of West 78a' Street and the new proposed street. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chaffing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work. and play CITY OF CIMSEN 7700 Market Boulevard MEMORANDUM PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner on Rde:952.227.11 Phone: 952.227.1181 FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal Fax: 952.227.1110 DATE: January 6, 2004 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952227.1190 SUBJ: Request for land use plan amendment for residential low density to residential medium density and; a conditional use permit for Engineering Phone: 952 227.1160 development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; preliminary Fax: 952.227.1170 planned unit development (PUD) review for an 18 unit townhouse project; site plan review for an 18 unit townhouse project; subdivision Finance Phone: 952.227 1140 approval for an 18 townhouse lots and outlots and a variance from the Fax 952227.1110 Bluff Creek Overlay District setback requirements on 6 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2; located at 2930 West Parka Recreation 780i Street (Northeast comer of West 78e' Street and Highway 41); Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Plowshares Development, LLC; Susan McAllister Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Planning Case: LUPA 2003-3, CUP 2003-10, PUD 2003-3, Phone: 952.227.1400 FPR 2003-11 and VAR 2003-19 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning s I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Natural Resources Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code Phone: 952.227.1130 or city ordinance/policy requirements. The plan review is based on the available Fax: 952.227.1110 information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the Publicworlos appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1591 Park Road PFax:955227.13100 Fax: 952.227.1310 1. A 10 -foot clearances ace must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street p y lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, Cable TV and transformer Senior center boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely PFax:952.227.1110 Fax: 952.227.1110 operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. Web site 2. No burning permits will be issued for trees/shrub disposal. Any trees removed www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us must be removed or chipped on site. An additional fire hydrant will be required at the intersection of West 78a' Street and the new proposed street. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chaffing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work. and play Mr. Robert Generous January 6, 2004 Page 2 4. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit the proposed name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval. 5. 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 time of construction except when approved, alternate methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2 of the Minnesota Fire Code. 6. Submit turn around dimensions for the end of the new proposed road to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. WAsafety\ml\plrevLUPA2003 CITY OF CHANIIASSEN 7100 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park A Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning A Natural Resources Phone: 952227.1130 Fax: 952 227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 0 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Bob Generous, Senior Planner Mak Sweidan, Engineer fi f December 29, 2003 My 41#� Preliminary Site Plan Review for McAllister Parcel Land Use Review File No. 03-22 Upon review of the plans dated December 5, 2003, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., I offer the following comments: GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL The plans propose to grade about 50% of the site for the new 18 -unit townhouse pads, a proposed private driveway ending with a partial hammer -head turnaround and a storm water pond. The proposed grading will prepare the site for lookout - type dwellings on Lots 2-11 and full basement walkouts on the remaining lots. Drainage swales have been proposed along the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. The plan proposes a 9 -foot retaining wall along the east side of the development. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall over 4 feet will require a building permit and must be designed by a Minnesota Registered Professional Structural Engineer. Also, all walls over 4 feet in height will require an approved safety fence at the top of the wall. The existing site drainage runs off site from the southwesterly quarter of the parcel to the east and north toward Bluff Creek. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the drainage from lots 12-18, all of the street drainage, all of the front yard drainage from the remaining lots and route the storm water to a proposed NURP pond in the southeasterly side of the site. The applicant is proposing an outlet overflow point to control the discharge of water from the proposed pond. The over flow water will be conveyed via storm sewer to an existing storm sewer, along the south side of West 78`1i Street, ending at a regional storm pond at the northwest quad of Century Boulevard and Highway 5 intersection. The amount of area that will still drain off site to the north toward Bluff Creek has been dramatically reduced. c'� 5i wo"OwI To date, rm drainage calculations have been submitted. The applicant must submit calculations with a drainage map for staff review. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year, 24- hour storm events. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards and utilize a 10:1 safety bench slope at the NWL. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play Bob Genero• December 29, 2003 Page 2 storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot minimum rock construction entrance, per City Detail Plate No.5301, should be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Century Trail, also water service is available from West 78`h Street. The applicant is proposing to extend the sewer line along the private street to service the proposed lots with Lots 16, 17 and 18 being serviced from the south side (back) of the house. Staff is recommending that the sanitary line be moved outside of the water level of the pond to avoid future maintenance problems. The watermain is proposed to be extended within the private street from West 78th Street. Staff is recommending that the watermain be looped through the site and connect with the existing water stub at the southeast corner of the property. A minimum 30 -foot wide public easement will be required over the public sewer and water -main. Also, a 20 -foot wide public easement will be required over the public sewer along the south side of the houses. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and street improvements. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This remaining balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per - area basis. In addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2003 trunk hookup charge is $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer, $1,876 per unit for water -main and the SAC fee is $1,275 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a pre -con meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District and MnDOT. Bob Genero• December 29, 2003 Page 3 STREETS The plan shows a full access off West 78a' Street along the south side of the parcel. The applicant is proposing a 31 -foot wide private street with concrete curb and gutter and a partial hammer -head turnaround. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Marshall. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 2. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 - year and 100 -year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. The applicant must submit storm sewer and storm pond sizing with a drainage map for staff review. 3. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all side of the grading area and Type III silt fence be used adjacent to Bluff Creek along the north. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 -foot minimum rock construction entrance must be used at the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. . 4. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat. 5. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 6. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and street improvements. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This remaining balance may be re -spread against the newly platted lots on a per -area basis. In addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2003 trunk hookup charge is $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer, $1,876 per unit for water -main and the SAC fee is $1,275 per unit. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned Bob Genero� • December 29, 2003 Page 4 by the Metropolitan Council. 7. The applicant must be aware that the public sewer and water -main require a pre -con meeting before the building permit issuance. 8. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc. 9. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2109A, 2201, 3101, 3104, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300 and 5301. 10. Realign the proposed side walk end away from the existing light pole and show a pedestrian curb ramp on the southeasterly corner of the parcel. 11. Add a concrete driveway apron to the plans at the proposed access. 12. Add a stop sign at the exit side of the access. 13. Add a street light at the access. 14. On the utility plan: a. Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. b. Show all the sanitary and water services. c. Show the sanitary manholes number, rim and invert elevations. d. Add a note "all water service must be 1 -in copper and all sanitary services must be 6 -in PVC-SDR26." e. Revise the second note from City of Farmington to City of Chanhassen and update the specification dates to year 2003. 15. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Add a storm sewer schedule. d. Show the storm sewer pipe size. e. Show a minimum 75 -foot rock construction entrance. f. Show the storm pond 10:1 bench per NURP standards. g. Show the retaining wall top and bottom elevations. h. Show the catch basin and manhole structure rim and invert elevations. i. Last storm manhole discharging to the pond must be a 2 -foot sump. Bob Generof • December 29, 2003 Page 5 j. Revise the fifth note from storm sewer class III to class 5. 14. On the preliminary plat: a. Side and rear lot line easements should be shown as 5 feet wide. b. Show all existing and proposed drainage and utility easements. c. Show the pavement width. d. Show the concrete driveway apron. 15. A minimum 20 -foot wide public easement is required for the pond outlet which extends outside the site property lines. 16. Any work outside of the subject property or right-of-way will require temporary easements. 17. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. 18. Move the sanitary line outside of the water level of the pond. 19. Loop the watermain through the site. 20. Any retaining wall over 4 feet will require a building permit and must be designed by a Minnesota Registered Professional Structural Engineer. Also, all walls over 4 feet in height will require an approved safety fence at the top of the wall. 21. The partial hammer -head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Marshall. 22. The private street must be enclosed in a 40 -foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7 -ton design. c: Matt Saam, Acting City Engineer/Public Works Director g: eng\projects\m allister parceRsprAm 0 0 V ��1 MEMORANDUM Cl l p Of 1 TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner CgA NSEN FROM: Steven Torell, Building Official 7700 Market Boulevard PC Boz 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 DATE: December 23, 2003 Administration SUBJ: Review of Site Plan for Plowshares Development, Susan McAllister Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227 1110 Planning Case: 2003-3 LUPA, 2003-10 CUP, 2003-3 PUD, Building Inspections 2003-11 SPR and 2003-19 VAR Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 engineering I have reviewed the plans for above project and offer the following comments, Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 which should be included in the conditions of approval: Finance 1. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system as Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.2271110 they are over 8,500 sq. ft. in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and Park & Recreation -cne 952 2271120 garages is included in the floor area threshold. Fax: 952.2271110 2. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one - Recreation Center hour fire -resistive construction. 2310 Coulter Boulevard 3. Each unit/lot must be provided with separate utility services. Phone: 952.227.1400 4. A permit for demolition must be obtained before demolishing any structures on Fax: 952.227 1404 the site. Planning a 5. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before Natural Resources permits can be issued. Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 6. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Public Worts 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax. 952.227.1110 Web site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us G/safety/st/memos/plan7Plowshares-McAllister The City of Chanhassen -A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A geat place to live, work, and play. 0 0 MEMORANDUM �r�p TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner Cl l l OF FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinators �// CI1H11I1Hk1SEN DATE: December 22, 2003 ��fff ��. 7700 Market Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Mghlands of Bluff Creek Administration 2.21100 Fax:Phone:52.227.1110 Upon review of plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated December 17, 2003, I offer the following comments and recommendations: Building Inspections Phone: 952227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT Engineering Phone. 952.221.1160 The northern portion of the site is enveloped b the Bluff Creek Overlay Fax: 952.227.1170 � Y Y District. The Primary Zone extends to the edge of the canopy/tree line. All Finance structures must maintain a 40 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary PFax:9522.27.1110 and no grading may occur within the first 20 feet of the setback. Lots 1-7 do Fax: 952.227.1110 not meet the required 40 -foot setback and, in fact, encroach into the Primary Part s Recreation Zone. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone must be preserved. Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Due to site constraints, staff recommends a variance that would allow a 20- 10 Cordon Boulevard foot setback from the Prim Zone boundary with no grading occurring enter 231gcomlerBowevam Primary �' gr g g Phone: 952.227.1400 within the first 10 feet of the setback. Lots 4, 5 and 6 do not meet the Fax: 952.227.1404 recommended 20 -foot setback and 10 -foot "no -grade" requirements. Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Fax: 952.227.1110 Public works Storm Water Management 1591 Park Road A manhole with a two -foot sump should be installed as the last structure that Phone: 952.227.1300 is road accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond. Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Phone: 952.227.1125 Complete storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed Fax 952 2271110 storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time." The note regarding positive drainage should be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Robert Generous • • December 29, 2003 Page 2 of 4 Easements A drainage and utility easement should be provided over the proposed storm water pond. Erosion and Sediment Control Riprap and geotextile fabric should be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-duty mono -mono silt fence with 4 -foot spacing of metal T -posts and 1" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light duty silt fence should also be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Sloie Time (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area Steeper than 3:1 7 days is not actively being worked.) 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 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. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $1,814/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 6 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $10,884. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Medium density townhome developments have a connection charge of Robert Generous • • December 29, 2003 Page 3 of 4 $3,528 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $21,168 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for water quality if NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from off-site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $32,052. Other Agencies 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. PUD 2003-3: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL All structures shall maintain a 20 -foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. 2. A manhole with a two -foot sump shall be installed as the last structure that is road accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond. 3. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Complete storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. 4. The note regarding positive drainage shall be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. 5. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over the proposed storm water pond. 6. Riprap and geotextile fabric shall be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. Robert Generous • • December 29, 2003 Page 4 of 4 7. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light duty silt fence shall be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. 8. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 9. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of SloM Stabilized within Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 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. 10. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. 11. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 6 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $10,884; the water quantity fees are approximately $21,168. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from off-site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $32,052. 12. 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. GAENGV.o i\Planniug\Highlands of Bluff Creek PC.dw '3`n9 Cep, d A 1946 0o4nty Se Ido.l94- •219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN 55387 Phone: 952-442-5101 Fax: 952-442-5497 :dRyATION AIST yr http://www.co.carver.mn.us/SWCD/SWCD_maln.htm Mission Statement: To provide leadership in conservation and teach stewardship of the sail, water, and related resources through a balanced, cooperative program that protects, restores, and improves those resources. FAX COVER SHEET To: Robert Generous Fax: 227-1110 Phone: 227-1131 From. Aaron Mlynek Pages: 3 Date: December 22, 2003 RE: McAllister Development CC: Comments ❑ Urgent J�Q For Review • Comments: Mr. Generous: Please Reply E As Requested Please review the following comments on the proposed McAllister Parcel. Thank you, Aaron Mlynek, CPESC-IT Urban Conservation Technician AN EQUAL OPPORTUMTY EMPLOYER -Dec•22. 2003 10:10AM ,ta9 COQ,` • 1946 % No -1943 V 2/3 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN 55387 Phone: 952-442-5101 Fax: 952-442-5497 httot//w xo.c:tmr.me.us/SWCD/SWCD m2Irt-hbW MUaran S/aemnea - To provide 4adersho of conwwflon and teach stewardship of the too, wane, and rdatedresotaces rhimgh a halanmd. Coope a"W program thatpmLew, restarts, and lmproyn ehon resaurcu- December 22, 2003 Robert Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed McAllister Parcel Development Mr. Generous: Thank you for sending a copy of the McAllister Parcel development to the S WCD office. Please review the following storm water, erosion, and sediment control comments and recommendations. Storm Water Beginning March 10, 2003 all developments disturbing I -acre or more or part of a contiguous development which will disturb more than 1 -acre require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Pollution Control Agency (PCA). The owner / operator of the proposed development must apply for and receive the NPDES permit prior to beginning construction activities. Any development disturbing more than 1 -acre and creating more than I -acre of impervious surface must also have permanent storm water treatment. It appears this is being done as the McAllister Parcel preliminary plan shows the storm water runoff being managed by a proposed storm water basin. For water quality purposes, it is recommended to construct the storm water basin as a two -cell basin, rather than a single cell, narrow, shallow basin. The two cell basin could consist of a berm constructed in the middle of the pond at an elevation of one foot below NWL (i.e. 997). The berm would encourage the first cell of the pond to retain more solids before the water flows into the second cell. Eventually, vegetation would grow on the berm and provide minimal additional treatment as well. The overland flow from lots 15 through 18 may need a slight berm to divert the water into the first cell of the two -cell basin. In the General Grading and Drainage Notes it states "All construction shall conform to local rules" and "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time". The construction must meet all state rules as well as local (i.e. NPDES permit). Additionally, the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations from the site while maintaining positive drainage. The AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY JFWLOYER `Dec.22. 2003 10:11 AM No•1943 P. 3/3 note "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time,* ould be amended to include verbiage pertaining to the sites' obligation to meet dewatering regulations according to NPDES. For further information check Part IV, Section D. 1 and 2 (page 15 of 26) of the NPDES Permit (MN R100001). Erosion Control 1. Riprap and geotextile fabric needs to be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. 2. No temporary mulch or seeding was mentioned in the erosion control notes. Temporary mulch and seed is needed within 7, 14, 21 days (depending upon slope) of final grade or if the area is going to remain exposed and fallow for those time frames. Sediment Control 1. A light duty silt fence should be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction.' 2. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-duty mono -mono silt fence with 4 foot spacing of metal T -posts and 1" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wile could be used as temporary inlet control. 3. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets must include daily street scraping and as - needed street sweeping (Le. weekly sweeping). If there are any questions regarding this review please contact the SWCD office. Sinc7ely, Aaron Nflyjakk, CPESC-IT Urban Conservation Technician Park A Recreation • • Phone: 952.227.1120 MEMORANDUM CITYOF trail system is located just to the south of the property along West 78th Street. CIIANIIASSEN TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner 7700 Market Boulevard FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director / V PO Box 147 l Chanhassen, MN 55317 Date: December 15, 2003 Administration It is recommended that the applicant pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or Phone: 952.227.1100 SUBJECT: McAllister Parcel Fax: 952.227.1110 these charges due to the existing single family home on the property. The Building Inspections I have reviewed the Plowshares Development proposal for an 18 -unit Phone: 952.227.1180 townhouse project (McAllister Parcel) as it relates to the park and trail section Fax: 952.227.1190 of the city's comprehensive plan. This property lies within the park service Engineering area of the Bluff Creek Park Preserve. The preserve features expansive open Phone: 952.227.1160 space, natural areas, and a trail system; however, a public playground or ball Fax: 952.227.1170 field is not located within walking distance. A private playground facility Finance owned by the Arboretum Village Association is located just south of the Phone: 952.227.1140 McAllister property. Fax: 952.227.1110 Park A Recreation A sidewalk connection to the city's comprehensive trail system should be Phone: 952.227.1120 included as a condition of approval for this project. The nearest section of the Fax: 952.227.1110 trail system is located just to the south of the property along West 78th Street. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard RECOMMENDATION Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 It is recommended that the applicant pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or Planning a trail construction on seventeen of the eighteen lots. One lot is exempt from Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 these charges due to the existing single family home on the property. The Fax: 952.227.1110 park fee will vary from $2,000 to $2,400 per unit, depending on the number of dwellings in each building. Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 c: Park and Recreation Commission Fax: 952.227.1310 gApark\th\mcaIIister property Senior Cerner Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web She www.achanhassen.mn.us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A peat place to live, work, and play. A 1% [Insert List Name and Address of Local Government Unit Here]City of Chanhassen. 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Name of Applicant: Todd Simning, Plowshares Application Number: Plowshares/McAllister Property Type of Application (check one): Date of Decision: August 12, 2003 Check One: ®Approved List of Addressees: [Landowner] Todd Simning, Plowshares ❑ Exemption Decision ® No Loss Decision ❑ Replacement Plan Decision ❑ Banking Plan Decision ❑ Wetland Type/Boundary Decision ❑ Approved with conditions ❑ Denied [Members of Technical Evaluation Panel] Chip Hentges, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District Lynda Peterson, Board of Soil and Water Resources [Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable)] Bob Obermeyer, Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District [Department of Natural Resources Regional Office] Julie Ekman, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Wetlands Coordinator @ Ecological Services Section 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155 Corp of Engineers Project Manager @ Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO -R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 [Individual members of the public who requested a copy, summary only] (none) McAllister No Loss -Page I of 2 (April 2003) W N You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above - referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0250 any appeal of the decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice. [LOC AL GOVERNMENT UNITI Aupust 12, 2003 Date Water Resources Coordinator Title - Page 2of2 McAllister No Loss (April 2003) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard • P.O. Box 147 • Chanhassen, MN 55317 Name of Applicant: Mr. Todd Simnin¢ Project Location: Plowshares/McAllister Property, Chanhassen, MN 55317 (TI 16N R23W S9) Type of Application (check one): ❑ EEI El Date of Decision: Aueust 12, 2003 Exemption Decision No Loss Decision Replacement Plan Decision Banking Plan Decision Findings and Conclusions The applicant submitted a no wetlands determination request for the above site, along with a description of the on-site conditions and supplementary site mapping information. The City agrees with the applicant's findings that there are no jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property. CITY OF CHANHASSEN By�� Title: Water Resources Coordinator Date: /2, ZOo� —ices LOCATION MAP Minnewashta Regional Park w.n i bw ark m� McAllister Parcel �0 �0 a� Minnesota Landscape Arboretum O ".a B 0 O a .a w Boulevard State Hwy 5 78TH Arboretum Boulevard m r N.o. Min to Landscape Arboretum Chanhassen Nature Preserve cam` 3 Chanh resery m _ «��rxl•ne re �t w��. w.M �dl,� •rw�n M• ILI SU L{/�"� '^ ///��/� (,/ 'dBOi RIIdIMN1R AO FdROA ll]/N —IL— Sn — --_ Y.. �MFm .. /i Y77it7_7 Nr1d 1115 '•' IAA]IA RNidbABtll 4� U C � "g Y - a� �q ••� �t •C 3iaF IMP P.i.... B • i -A3 a t !a_y• , 31w•aa+3�Li — $ S � m )� N t—z?�iffi4lb"-•---3a!!lfff't° � I.'r i �zc i t H I _ Ate., I i i P ; I .E , , ;,------------- i 1' l i / t 4! S `ul I :UEt y ujjj I UP ;I f =A It YIN A)AAAIA SNIP" .a111F t t 50 q- 1 6�3 �M� m