Loading...
4. Golden Glow Acres: Preliminary Plat.CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: 1/4/95 CC DATE: 8/28/95, 9/25/95 and 1/22/96 � CASE #: 94 -22 SUB Bv: Al -Jaff / Hempel:v Fi STAFF REPORT Q U C t PROPOSAL: LOCATION APPLICANT: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 2.22 Acres into 4 single family lots, Golden Glow Acres West of Powers Boulevard and approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard James G. Ravis 6660 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District �Q H p ACREAGE: 2.22 acres DENSITY: 1.8 Units per Acre 1.87 Units per Acre -Net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family S - RSF, Residential Single Family E - RSF, Residential Single Family, Powers Boulevard W - RSF, Residential Single Family WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. . PHYSICAL CHARACTER. The site contains a single family home and a garage. A wetland occupies the southwesterly edge of the site. Mature trees of different species occupy the northerly and easterly portion of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) 1 , 71 1 I 014 NO 0 0 IWI I I VIS t*-- WA lip A OKU Ali I Golden Glow Acres Updated January 22, 1996 Page 2 I UPDATE ' On September 25, 1995, the City Council reviewed and tabled action on this application. Staff was directed to meet with the applicants and their immediate neighbors to look at potential alternatives to this proposal. The meeting took place on October 26, 1995. Mr. ' Ravis, Mr. Infanger, Mr. Kohman, Mr. and Mrs. Peterson, Mr. Christenson, Mr. Kerber, Councilman Senn, Councilman Berquist, and engineering and planning staff were present at the meeting. The Private Driveway ordinance allows a maximum of four homes to be accessed via a private street. The subject subdivision proposed to utilize a private street to access four ' homes. The most feasible way for Mr. Infanger and Mr. Kohman to access the westerly half of their parcels is via the same private street Mr. Ravis is utilizing. This would increase the number of homes accessing the private street to six homes which would ' require a variance. At the October 26, 1995 meeting, Mr. Ravis and Mr. Infanger agreed to investigate the option of Mr. Ravis purchasing a portion of Mr. Infanger's land and ' combining it with proposed Lot 4. This scenario would have resulted in Mr. Infanger not being able to further subdivide his property which would have eliminated the need for a potential variance since Mr. Kohman had no plans to ever subdividing. This option did not materialize. On January 16, 1996, staff received a letter from Mr. Jeremy Steiner, (Mr. Ravis' ' Attorney). All the issues raised in the letter were addressed in staffs report dated September 25, 1995, (see page 10), and we believe the majority of these issues were resolved. The only outstanding issue pertains to the dedication of a cul -de -sac easement ' over proposed Lot 2. This staff report and conditions of approval have been edited to reflect changes. All ' changes will appear in bold letters. PROPOSAL /SUMMARY ' The applicant is ro osin to subdivide 2.22 acres into 4 single family lots. The property is p p g g Y p P Y zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The average lot size is 23,304 square feet with a resulting net density of 1.87 units per acre. The ' site is located west of Powers Boulevard and approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. Access to the subdivision is proposed to be provided via a private street which will serve all four lots. There is a single family home on the existing ' parcel. 7 Golden Glow Acres ' Updated January 22, 1996 Page 3 ' All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning I Ordinance. The site has a dense concentration of mature trees along its northerly portion. The applicant has ' submitted a landscaping /reforestation plan. A preservation easement over the wooded areas along the north property line as well as the common lot line separating Lots 2 and 3, will be required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently , preserving the trees. One of the main issues of concern is access to the site. Back in September of 1991, in ' conjunction with Lundgren's WillowRidge subdivision which lies directly to the west of this site, access and utility service to this site were explored. Utilities were extended to the west line of this site in conjunction with WillowRidge's development proposal. Access into the Ravis parcel ' from WillowRidge was another matter, however. The Ravis parcel does have frontage along Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) which allowed other alternatives to provide access to the Ravis property rather than WillowRidge. Staff concluded at that time a cul -de -sac from ' WillowRidge was not feasible. A cul -de -sac from Lundgren's WillowRidge would have involved losing a lot of trees and by the time the cul -de -sac was extended through to the Ravis ' property, there was very little property left to be developed. Staff has recently explored some other alternative development possibilities on the Ravis property and adjoining parcels. Attached is a memo that was sent to the residents lying south of Lake Lucy Road and west of Powers ' Boulevard (Attachment 1). This memo explores five alternatives to subdividing the neighborhood. Staff met with the residents regarding the alternative development proposals back on March 9, 1995. At that meeting, there were numerous discussions pertaining to private , driveway access points along Powers Boulevard as well as all of the options listed within the memo. The general consensus was that no one alternative could be completely agreed upon by all affected parcels. Staff did propose Option E as a viable option in developing the , neighborhood, including the Ravis parcel. This alternative also provided the most flexibility for the other adjacent parcels to subdivide as well. The private driveway proposal, as submitted, limits access to only the Ravis parcel and no future access to the adjoining parcels. Staff feels , that this area can and should be developed under a different alternative which includes a public street. Therefore, at this time staff recommends that the subdivision as proposed be denied due to premature street access to development. If a private driveway was allowed to be constructed, , the remaining parcels (Kohman and Infanger) will have limited subdivision potential, if any. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is premature. We are recommending ' that it be denied for reasons discussed in the staff report. ' Golden Glow Acres Updated January 22, 1996 Page 4 ' PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.22 acres into 4 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.87 units per acre net. ' All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area with an average lot size of 23,304 square feet. A single - family residence currently occupies proposed Lot 1. This structure meets all zoning ordinance setback requirements. The site is located west of Powers Boulevard ' and approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. Access to the subdivision is proposed to be provided via a private street which will serve all four lots. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ' WETLANDS The edge of a large ag -urban wetland touches the Ravis property and has been staked by a trained wetland delineator. A 0 to 20 foot wide buffer with an average 10 foot wide buffer will be maintained as required in the City's Wetland Ordinance. Staff requires a letter documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before building construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. I DRAINAGE L� Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) The city has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. Golden Glow Acres ' Updated January 22, 1996 Page 5 ' Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on ' land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond , construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since there is no downstream water quality basin for ' this site these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding needed for the site. A credit for the one existing house /lot has been applied. The proposed SWMP quality charge has been calculated at $800 /acre for single - family residential developments. This proposed ' development of 2.14 acres (less the existing home site on Lot 1 = .72 acres) would then be responsible for a water quality connection charge of 1.42 acres which equates to $1,136.00. This fee will be waived if the applicant constructs an appropriate sediment basin to pretreat the ' stormwater runoff from the site. The site drains to the southwest into the ag /urban wetland. Since this wetland is shown to ' receive all stormwater discharge including hard surface areas, staff recommends that a sediment trap should be provided in accordance with the City's SWMP to pretreat the stormwater before it ' is discharged into the wetland. Staff recommends the applicant develop a storm water drainage plan to convey runoff from the driveways down to a stormwater treatment pond. Detailed storm drainage calculations will be required for review and approval by the City prior to final plat. I Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average ' city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. ' Since the SWMP does not propose any improvements on this site, the applicant should be required to pay the City the stormwater quantity charge. Single family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This proposed single - family residential ' development of 1.42 acres would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $2,811.60. ' GRADING The grading and utility plan proposes to grade a private street from Powers Boulevard (County , Road 17) to service the proposed four lots. As a result of the grading most of the significant spruce trees along the southerly property line will be lost. The existing driveway access point is ' proposed to be relocated to tie into the proposed private street from Powers Boulevard. The Carver County Highway Department will need to issue an access permit for the proposed private 1 Golden Glow Acres ' Updated January 22, 1996 Page 6 ' street. Between 6 to 8 feet of fill is needed to build up the house pads for Lots 3 and 4. Staff is wondering if there is additional material on site to be utilized for the development of these house pads or will material be imported to the site? If material is to be imported or exported, approved ' haul routes will need to be submitted to the City for review and approval. EROSION CONTROL ' All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Erosion control fence is proposed adjacent to the ' wetlands within the buffer zone. Staff recommends erosion control be placed at the construction limits and not encroaching upon the buffer zone. I UTILITIES ' Sanitary sewer service is available to the site from the west; however, sanitary sewer is not deep enough to service Lot 4 without an ejector pump in the lower level. According to the plans, the applicant is proposing the use of a 3 -inch forcemain which is not desirable nor necessary in this ' situation. There are alternative measures to be employed such as an ejector pump from the lower level. Staff recommends that Lot 4 be required to make use of an ejector system for the lower level so that the main level and above will be on a gravity sewer system. This option requires less maintenance for the homeowner and, from a reliability standpoint, a superior alternative. Water service is available from Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to extend a 6 -inch ' water service line down for water service to the new lots as well as fire protection. As denoted in the alternative development proposals, this site can also be served by public utilities and streets from the north through a public improvement project. If this application is approved, staff ' recommends that the sewer and water construction be in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities should be turned over to the City for ownership and maintenance. The applicant will need to ' enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements. STREETS ' Back in September of 1991 in conjunction with Lundgren's WillowRidge subdivision which lies directly to the west of this site, access and utility service to this site were explored. Utilities were extended to the west line of this site in conjunction with WillowRidge's development proposal. Access into the Ravis parcel from WillowRidge was another matter, however. The Ravis parcel does have frontage along Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) which allowed other alternatives to provide access to the Ravis property rather than WillowRidge. Staff concluded at that time a ' cul -de -sac from WillowRidge was not feasible. A cul -de -sac from Lundgren's WillowRidge would have involved losing a lot of trees and by the time the cul -de -sac was extended through to 1 Golden Glow Acres ' Updated January 22, 1996 , Page 7 ' the Ravis property, there was very little property left to be developed. Staff has recently ' explored some other alternative development possibilities on the Ravis property and adjoining parcels. Attached is a memo that was sent to the residents lying south of Lake Lucy Road and ' west of Powers Boulevard (Attachment 1). This memo explores five alternatives to subdividing the neighborhood. Staff met with the residents regarding the alternative development proposals ' back on March 9, 1995. At that meeting there were numerous discussions pertaining to private ' driveway access points along Powers Boulevard as well as all of the options listed within the memo. The general consensus was that no one alternative could be completely agreed upon by ' all affected parcels. Staff did propose Option E as a viable option in developing the neighborhood, including the Ravis parcel. This alternative also provided the most flexibility for the other adjacent parcels to subdivide as well. The private driveway proposal, as submitted, ' limits access to only the Ravis parcel and no future access to the adjoining parcels. Staff feels that this area can and should be developed under a different alternative which includes a public street. Therefore, at this time staff recommends that the subdivision as proposed be denied due ' to premature street access to development. If a private driveway was allowed to be constructed, the remaining parcels (Kohman and Infanger) will have limited subdivision potential, if any. PRIVATE STREETS - FINDINGS The applicant is proposing the use of a private street to provide access to four proposed lots in , this development. City Code, Section 18 -57 (o) permits up to four (4) lots to be served by a private street if the city finds the following to exist: ' (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the , location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions, and the existence of wetlands. ' FINDING: The prevailing development does not make it infeasible for the construction of a public street. Should the applicant be permitted to construct the private street as proposed, two parcels will be limited in subdividing and /or possibly prohibited from further subdividing. Staff believes that option E of the alternative development proposals is the best of the 5 alternatives for serving the neighboring properties. , win the surrounding area it is concluded that an extension of the (2) After reviewing g public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. , FINDING: The extension of a public street as described in option E is required to I service the surrounding parcels. i Golden Glow Acres Updated January 22, 1996 Page 8 (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees. FINDING: The proposed private street will result in the removal of a large number of trees located south of Lot 1. By using a public street, all those trees will be preserved. If the public street was relocated to the north of the site where staff has proposed, tree loss would be minimal. Most of the trees can be transplanted due to their size. Staff is recommending that the private streets as proposed by the applicant be denied for reasons outlined above. PARK DEDICATION Full park and trail fees will be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and /or trail construction. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a tree inventory and canopy coverage calculation. Also noted on the plan are required replacement plantings to be done. All trees, excluding those in the front yard of the existing home, are along the property lines of the site. Since the new road will be following the southern and lower eastern lines, a number of trees are scheduled to be removed. The Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 100' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 31,437 125' 252' 30'/30' 10' Lot 2 18,750 125' 150' 30730' 20' Lot 3 20,456 140' 150 30750' 20' Lot 4 22,575 169' 150' 30750' 20' TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a tree inventory and canopy coverage calculation. Also noted on the plan are required replacement plantings to be done. All trees, excluding those in the front yard of the existing home, are along the property lines of the site. Since the new road will be following the southern and lower eastern lines, a number of trees are scheduled to be removed. The L Golden Glow Acres , Updated January 22, 1996 Page 9 ' diameters range from four to 16 inches, not including a 48 inch willow that appears to be on the neighbor's property. , Five trees ( 35, 36, 37, 38, and 45) have been included on the survey, but do not appear to be on the property being developed. Trees 35 through 38 have questionable survival chances. There ' will be a three to four foot cut for the roadway and the four trees are 2 to 10 feet from the edge of the cut. Since they appear to be on the neighbor's property, their removal cannot be readily ' assumed. The applicant's canopy coverage calculations are in order and they will be required to plant 13 replacement trees as shown on the tree inventory. During construction, trees 51 through 58 must be protected at all times by tree protection fencing. The same preservation principles shall be applied to trees near the existing house and along the proposed roadway. ' Whether or not trees 35 through 38 and 45 will be included in the development plans must be resolved by the applicant considering they are not on the development property. Their removal or ' preservation may also make a slight difference in canopy coverage calculations. FINDINGS ' 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding q The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential ' Single Family District. ' 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; ' Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable plans with the exception of the private street ordinance as discussed in the private street findings section. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, ' vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions ' specified in this report. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, ' 4. p p q P PP , storm drainage, Y sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; ' 1 Golden Glow Acres ' Updated January 22, 1996 Page 10 ' Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure with the exception of public streets. ' 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. Tree removal can be minimized if the applicant ' implemented option E of street layout proposal prepared by the city. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. ' Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, g p p g but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. ' b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure with the exception of adequate streets. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE ' On April 19, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended denial of this application. They concluded that their role was to ensure that areas develop in an orderly i fashion. Allowing the subject site to develop as proposed could hinder the development of the surrounding properties. Hence, the Planning Commission concurred with the findings presented ' in the staff report and recommended denial of the application. Staff met with the applicant and his attorney on June 6, 1995 and August 2, 1995 to discuss ' compromises to the conditions of approval for preliminary plat of Golden Glow Acres. One of the alternatives was granting an easement for the cul -de -sac over proposed Lots 1 and 2. With this proposal we had concerns for upgrading the cul -de -sac in the future. Staff s initial reaction was to require it to be paved in conjunction with the overall development or at least Golden Glow Acres ' Updated January 22, 1996 Page 11 ' require a financial security to guarantee construction in the future which was not acceptable to Mr. Ravis. Staff agreed to consider it as an alternative. ' It appears the Ravis' are interested in striking a compromise with regards to granting a cul -de -sac easement to the City contingent upon certain conditions. The conditions involve variances to city ordinance. For instance, the SWMP connection fees are required in accordance to Section 18 -63. Some of the conditions listed may be amenable with further modifications. Listed below are the City's responses to the conditions of compromise. ' Condition No. 1: The condition requiring a conservation easement over the vegetated areas will be eliminated from the staff report. Based on the proposed grading plan, very little vegetated area will remain except along the north property line of Lot 1. Therefore, the conservation easement is no longer applicable. ' Condition No. 2: The subdivision ordinance requires a grading and development plan with each final plat to ensure that building elevations and type will be compatible with the overall drainage and grading plan. These elevations may be modified at time of building permit issuance by one or two feet, plus or minus, from the proposed grade as long as the drainage pattern is maintained. We also require this data to ensure the sanitary sewer will be able to serve the proposed dwelling ' via a gravity sewer system. This information is also used to verify that the driveway grade will not exceed 10% which is city ordinance. Therefore, condition no. 2 of staff s recommendations must remain as is. Condition No. 9: The subdivision ordinance (18 -78) and development contract require all of the public improvements to be initiated within one (1) year and completed within two years from the ' date the development contract is executed. There is a section in the development contract whereby the applicant may request the City Council grant an extension to this deadline. The reason for this requirement is to ensure that the improvements are installed in an expedient i manner to minimize erosion and disturbance to the adjacent properties. In addition, no building permits are issued for the development until the public improvements are installed and the streets ' paved with a bituminous surface. Condition No. 11: The requirement that the developer pay the cost of extending utilities to the north line of Lot 2 for future extension is very typical. It is necessary so the adjacent property owner is able to connect to the utility system and be able to extend it through their parcel for future development. By looping the water system, it also improves the Ravis' development proposal from a water quality and fire flow standpoint. This condition must remain as is. Even if the street from the north is not constructed to the Ravis' property, it is most likely that the watermain would be extended north to provide a looped water system. I Golden Glow Acres Updated January 22, 1996 Page 12 ' Condition No. 13: This condition may be modified. We will delete the.portion of the condition as follows: "Direct access to all lots be limited to the proposed private street." The requirement for a cross - access easement will need to remain. ' Condition No. 14: Storm sewer improvements will be further reviewed during the final construction plan review process. Upon quick review of the project, we believe if the project was approved with just a four -lot subdivision it may only require drainage swales between the lots. However, since this development is down stream of the property to the north, additional runoff may be created and directed towards the wetlands on this site. Therefore, staff believes there ' should be an area designated for stormwater treatment. The developer will receive credit for the oversizing of the drainage basin. The credit will be applied to the development S WMP connection fees. The exact credit is determined upon review of the final construction plans. The proposal to waive the SWMP fees is unacceptable. These fees are required by city ordinance. Condition No. 16: The storm drainage would be reviewed in conjunction with the final ' construction drawings. ' Cul -de -sac Easement: Requirement of a cul -de -sac easement is not mentioned in the April 19, 1995 staff report to the Planning Commission because staff recommended denial of the proposal. Discussions of the cul -de -sac originated based on meetings following the Planning Commission ' meeting. The City does have the authority to require dedication of street right -of -way to construct a public street to city standards to access the proposed development. The proposed cul -de -sac could serve as a turnaround to meet the City's private driveway ordinance and serve as a terminus ' for a future public street from the north. If the property to the north develops in some other fashion than what staff had considered as Option E, the cul -de -sac easement could be vacated. At least with this scenario, there are more options available for development to occur. If the cul -de- ' sac /street is constructed, the other two parcels (Infanger and Kohman) could gain access to a public street which would also give these parcels potential to further subdivide. Should the cul- de -sac be constructed in the future, access to proposed Lots 2, 3, and 4 shall be limited to the ' public cul -de -sac and the private driveway would be removed along the south side of proposed Lot 1. ' Staff met with Mr. Ravis and Council member Senn on Friday, August 18, 1995 to further discuss concerns Mr. Ravis had with staff s conditions of approval. Council member Senn directed staff to consult with the City Attorney on ways in which the Ravis' could be reimbursed for ' construction of the private driveway if the adjacent parcels request to subdivide and propose to use the private driveway. ' According to Mr. Roger Knutson, City Attorney, if the adjacent properties wanted to gain access to the Ravis' private driveway to service their developments, they would have to negotiate on their own behalf the easement rights to use the Ravis' private driveway with the property owners that have rights to the driveway. The other alternative would be for the adjacent property owners to Golden Glow Acres Updated January 22, 1996 Page 13 petition the City to acquire an easement and construct a street through the Ravis parcel to service their development needs. This would require a §429 improvement project. ' Staff also discussed with Council member Senn and Mr. Ravis the need for the cul -de -sac easement and the effects on development. One of the concerns was that if the cul -de -sac was constructed in the future; homes in the Ravis plat should meet the necessary setbacks at this time to accommodate a potential future cul -de -sac. On Lot 2 the setback should be 50 feet versus the standard 30 feet from the front property line to facilitate the possible future cul -de -sac. There ' appears to be sufficient room on the lot to accommodate this setback requirement. Mr. Ravis does not seem opposed to the idea as well, but does not want to be assessed for street from the north ' when and if it happens. RECOMMENDATION I The Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council denies the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -22 for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans dated November 18, 1994 for reasons outlined in the staff report." ' Should the City Council wish to approve the preliminary plat, staff recommends the City Council ' adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -22 for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans dated November 18, 1995, with the following conditions: 1. The vegetated areas which will not be aff-ected by the development will be protected by conservation easernent. The consen easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and under-brush. All healthy trees ever- 6" Caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be remov Staff shall previde o pla w irh sho the loeatio of the Gonsen easement and the applicant shall provide the legal . The ' applicant will be required to plant 13 replacement trees as shown on the tree inventory. 2. Building Department conditions: ' a. Revise Grading and Utility Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final ' plat approval. Golden Glow Acres Updated January 22, 1996 Page 14 b. Revise the Grading and Utility Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. C. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Submit street names to Public Safety for approval. b. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. C. Fire hydrant location is accepted. 4 Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and /or trail construction. 5. The applicant shall provide the city with a $500 escrow prior to the city signing the final plat for review and recording of the final plat documents and guarantee boulevard restoration. 6. Importing or exporting material from the site will require approval of a haul route. The haul route shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 7. Lot 4 shall utilize an internal ejector pump system to service the lower level of the dwellings, if necessary. The use of a forcemain shall be prohibited. 8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Erosion control fence shall be installed at the edge of the construction limits and not within the wetland buffer zone. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the final plat conditions of approval. 10. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 11. The applicant shall be responsible for extending a municipal water line ut ilities to the north line of Lot 2 and sanitary sewer and water services to the Infanger and Kohman 15. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The applicant shall submit a letter to the City documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. 16. The app applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year storm events and prov Y „ nd g cal for the e stor�v wa+ qu ality pon in b ' accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The grading plan shall be revised to include a storm drainage system swales which will convey runoff from the private street and lawn areas to the wetlands p retreatment pond ' 17. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the utility improvements shall be ' required for review and formal approval by the City Council. Construction plans and specifications shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications & Detail Plates. ' 18. On Lot 2, the setback should be 50 feet versus the standard 30 feet from the front property line to facilitate the possible future cul -de -sac. ' Golden Glow Acres Updated January 22, 1996 Page 15 properties to the east for future extension. Lots 2, 3 and 4 will be charged at time of building permit issuance a hookup charge in the amount of $2,4 for eaek let in , accordance to city ordinance. The applicant shall be reimbursed for providing sanitary sewer and water service to the Infanger and Kohman properties. The city shall collect a connection charge in accordance to city ordinance when the properties ' subdivide and building permits are issued. The city shall then reimburse the applicant out of the connection charge for the cost of providing sanitary sewer and water service. ' 12. The applicant shall receive the necessary access permit from the Carver County Highway Department for relocating the driveway access prior to the City signing the final plat. 13. d i rect a ss to all lo t s hall b e limited t th propose p rivate s tree t . A cross - access �JCR� G�CL easement agreement shall be prepared by the applicant to maintain access to Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 via the proposed private street. a d r a • a to con run from n+ ball d esi g n sy stem a nd The ' s 14. a p p li ca nt eenstruet ge the to SAIMP standards to disGharge into the- the development and pretreat sterm runoff tla d� • l' fp a y ing S)AWP w a ter q uality . The applicant shall pay the City a SWMP water quantity and quality connection fees in the amount of $2,811.60 and $1,136.00 respectfully. This These fees is are payable prior to the City signing the final plat. 15. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The applicant shall submit a letter to the City documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. 16. The app applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year storm events and prov Y „ nd g cal for the e stor�v wa+ qu ality pon in b ' accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The grading plan shall be revised to include a storm drainage system swales which will convey runoff from the private street and lawn areas to the wetlands p retreatment pond ' 17. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the utility improvements shall be ' required for review and formal approval by the City Council. Construction plans and specifications shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications & Detail Plates. ' 18. On Lot 2, the setback should be 50 feet versus the standard 30 feet from the front property line to facilitate the possible future cul -de -sac. ' Golden Glow Acres ' Updated January 22, 1996 Page 16 ' 19. The applicant shall dedicate a 50 foot cul -de -sac easement over Lots 1 and 2 so the southerly terminus abuts the Kohman parcel south of Lot 1. u r 20. If the public street /cul -de -sac is constructed in the future, access to Lots 2, 3 and 4 shall be limited to the public street /cul -de -sac and the private driveway along the south side of Lot 1 shall be abandoned and removed in conjunction with the project." ATTACHMENTS 1. Alternative development proposals. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle dated April 10, 1995. 3. Application. 4. Letter from the applicant dated November 24, 1994. 5. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated December 13, 1994. 6. Memo from Mark Littfin dated November 23, 1994. 7. Memo from Jill Kimsal, dated April 11, 1995. 8. Minnegasco dated December 1, 1994 9. Memo from DNR dated November 30, 1994. 10. Memo from Carver County Engineer dated December 30, 1995. 11. Public hearing and property owners list. 12. Excerpt from City Council minutes dated September 9, 1991. 13. Planning Commission minutes dated April 19, 1995. 14. Letter from William Infanger and Russell Kohman dated September 9, 1995. 15. Letter from Jeremy Steiner dated January 12, 1996. 16. City Council minutes dated September 25, 1995. 17. Preliminary plat dated November 18, 1994. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 1 Re: Alternative Development Proposals for Ravis Property and Adjoining Parcels LUR File No. 95 -4 Dear Resident: This letter is a follow up to our previous neighborhood meeting regarding the Ravis development (Golden Glow Acres). As promised, please find attached a copy of five alternatives to subdividing the Ravis property and adjoining parcels. In addition, I have attached a preliminary assessment roll from the costs of construction these improvements assuming the City was petitioned by the benefitting property owners. The City has reviewed the Ravis development proposal and feels that a public street (Option E) is a feasible alternative to the proposed private driveway scenario and therefore the City is notin support of the private driveway access to serve solely the Ravis parcel. ; Please review the attachments I have enclosed. I would like to schedule a neighborhood meeting to discuss these alternatives on March 9; 1995 at 6:00 p,m. in the City's Senior Center located on the lower level at City Hall. If you have any questions, and are unable to attend the meeting, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF C David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer DCH:jms Attachments c: Charles D. Folch, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Sharmin A] -Jaff, Planner II g Ae n g \d a v e \letters \ra v i s 1 I February 24, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI -Jaff, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: January 30, 1995 SUBJ: Alternative Development Proposals for Ravis Property File No. 95 -4 LUR Attached are five alternatives to subdividing this neighborhood. I have listed below the pros and cons of each option. All options maintain existing homesites and Mr. Kerber's "Twins" garage is removed in all options. Dashed lines represent existing property lines. Solid lines represent proposed lot lines. Utilities would be able to be extended to each option; however, Option E would require less utility and street construction. OPTION A This option develops the northerly portion of the site with a public street (assumes Ravis subdivision proposal over the south half). Pros - City street - Utilitizes properties to their full potential - Adequate intersection spacing on Lake Lucy Road - Access limited to Lake Lucy Road - Allows for Berming along Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road Cons - Requires properties to be consolidated and replatted - Tree loss - Significant grading /filling - Rear yards against Powers Boulevard - House type mostly ramblers versus walkouts - Still requires private driveways to serve parcels to the south OPTION B This option is similar to Option A but extended to service all parcels. Pros Cons Basically the same as Option A except Same as Option A but this option does not serves all the parcels. need private driveways. - City street - Utilitizes properties to their full potential - Adequate intersection spacing on Lake Lucy Road - Provides room for berming along Powers Boulevard - Access limited to Lake Lucy Road OPTION C Pros Same as Options A and B except allows two access points and the long cul -de -sac is reduced in half. - Becomes a long (1075') cul -de -sac with one access point Cons Same as Options A and B except the long cul -de -sac issue is resolved. OPTION D Basically the same as Option B except access is from Powers Boulevard and Lot 6 would have access on to Lake Lucy Road. Pros - City street - Utilizes properties to their full potential - Adequate intersection spacing on Powers Boulevard - Provides room for berming along Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road. Cons - Requires properties to be consolidated and replatted - Tree loss - Significant grading /filling - Rearyards against Powers Boulevard - House type mostly ramblers versus walkouts OPTION E This option combines the use of private driveways and a public street to develop the site. Least disruptive to existing features and also allows for the area to develop, for the most part, independently of each other. Pros - Minimizes site grading /filling and tree loss; retains existing topographic features for the most part - Provides a mixture of house types, i.e. walkout, rambler, etc. - Allows for parts of the area to develop independently of the rest - Provides public street access - Curb cuts align with or across from existing driveways - Adequate intersection spacing - Room for berming along Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road - Maintains use of existing driveways - Most likely the most feasible from and economic standpoint - eliminates long dead -end cul -de -sac Cons - Still requires two or more parcels to replat in order to develop layout DCH:ktm Attachments: Options A, B, C, D & E gAeng \dave \memos \ravis i 0 f pp77oN A C%&fc 4. I M z/ ZD KERBEF GRAVLUM 1 E- novrd � 4 ILL. I Fj ING u / r I , ,3 7 I , 2 I MU I _ I ZI ' "I .$" KERB�4 1 GRAVLUM ON 17 ►� 1 9 5• jam , � t _.. .._—"' �., V 4 �r I I : l- MAN I FANGER I . i �°naof ' 1 aPnov,a J, AJ •�RJ�EiLti� �, 1 I 1 } U I Z HY z �� IV 1 KERBER GRAVL 7- PEJERSO Zo RAVIS KOH M AWI I!, u . INFAN {[[ Vii. E' Preliminary Assessment Roll. LAKE'LUCY /POWERS BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOOD . February 13, 1995 Listed below is a cost estimate to provide public utility and street improvements under a City project to service the subdivision proposal Option E. These costs are only preliminary and do not take into consideration poor soils, if any, or subdivision costs. The table below lists the property owners and the number of lots that will receive benefit from the improvements. Therefore, they will be assessed. The actual number of lots is shown on Option E. FOOTNOTES Street estimate does not include Kerber /Murphy private driveway cost. " Private driveway cost (done by owner) = Approximately $25 per L.F. Would increase Kerber and Murphy cost by $7,500 and $5,000 respectively ** This estimate does NOT include the cost of subdividing M M M M M M M M= r= s= M r SANITARY/WATER PER LOT COST GRADING SANITARY SERVICE ONLY WATER STORM STREET TOTA L $2,200 $3,542 $1,650 $2,266 $1,316 $5,423 1. KERBER (lots) $19,800 9 $3,542 1 $3,300 $2,266 $11,844 $27,115 $67,867 2. MURPHY (lots) $2,200 $10,626 2 $0 1 $6,798 9 $3,948 5 $0 $23,572 3. GRAVLUM (lots) 1 $4,400 3 $3,542 0 $0 3 $2,266 3 $2,632 0 $10,846 $23,686 4. PETERSON (lots) 2 $4,400 1 $3,542 0 $0 1 $2,266 2 $2,632 2 $10,846 $23,686 5. RAVIS (lots) 2 $6,600 1 $10,626 0 $0 1 $6,798 2 $5,264 2 $16,269 $45,557 6. KOHMAN (lots) 3 $2,200 3 $3,542 0 $0 3 $2,266 4 $1,316 3 $5,423 $14,747 7.INFANGER ( lots ) 1 $2,200 1 1 $3,542 0 $0 1 $2,266 1 $1,316 1 $5,423 $14,747 1 0 1 1 1 TOTAL $213,862.00 FOOTNOTES Street estimate does not include Kerber /Murphy private driveway cost. " Private driveway cost (done by owner) = Approximately $25 per L.F. Would increase Kerber and Murphy cost by $7,500 and $5,000 respectively ** This estimate does NOT include the cost of subdividing M M M M M M M M= r= s= M r 1 L O 'Oki �I SE, Rb. � CO 67 ��' - 5 8� v/) r r �olo � w �- S r r r r r C 3" I �z�� BEN O.g 6.e,Q ✓G�/� CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: April 10, 1995 SUBJ: Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis - File No. 95 -4 LUR Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings dated,September 29, 1994 and prepared by Engelhardt Associates, Inc., we offer the following comments aticl: recommendations: WETLANDS The edge of a large ag -urban wetland touches the��avis property and has been staked by a trained wetland delineator. A 0 to 20 foot wide buffer with an average 10 foot wide buffer will be maintained as required in the City's Wetland Ordinance. Staff requires a letter documenting that there will be no alterations to �e the wetland as a result of the project. s Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed arc staked in accordancewith the City's wetland ordinance. The re. City will install wetland buffer edge signs before building construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.h DRAINAGE Surface Water The city has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool „to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. Thetplan identifies, from a regional perspective; -tlie storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to all' to development o:fake place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 - year design std nu iinterval for storni sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pc4dnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to detennine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus 1 n L MEMORANDUM Sharmin Al -Jaff April 10, 1995 ' Page 2 load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since there is no downstream water quality basin for this site these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding needed for the site. A credit for the one existing house /lot has been applied. The proposed SWMP quality charge has been calculated at $800 /acre for single - family residential developments. This proposed development of 2.14 acres (less the existing home site on Lot 1 = .72 acres) would then be responsible for a water quality connection charge of 1.42 acres which equates to $1,136.00. This fee will be waived if the applicant constructs an appropriate sediment basin to pretreat the stormwater runoff from the site. The site drains to the southwest into the ag /urban wetland. Since this wetland is shown to receive all stormwater discharge including hard surface areas, staff recommends that a sediment trap should be provided in accordance with the City's SWMP to pretreat the stormwater before it is discharged into the wetland. Staff recommends the applicant develop a storm water drainage plan to convey runoff from the driveways down to a stormwater treatment pond. Detailed storm drainage calculations will be required for review and approval by the City prior to final plat. ' Stonn Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide ' rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Since the SWMP does not propose any improvements on this site, the applicant should be required to pay the City the stormwater quantity charge. Single family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This proposed single - family residential development of 1.42 acres would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $2,811.60. I GRADING The grading and utility plan proposes to grade a private street from Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) to service the proposed four lots. As a result of the grading most of the significant pine trees along the southerly property line will be lost. The existing driveway access point is proposed to be relocated to tie into the proposed private street from Powers Boulevard. The Carver County Highway Department will ' need to issue an access permit for the proposed private street. Between 6 to 8 feet of fill is needed to build up the house pads for Lots 3 and 4. Staff is wondering if there is additional material on site to be utilized for the development of these house pads or will material be imported to the site? If material is to be imported or exported, approved haul routes will need to be submitted to the City for review and approval. ' EROSION CONTROL All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after ' grading to minimize erosion. Erosion control fence is proposed adjacent to the wetlands within the buffer zone. Staff recommends erosion control be placed at the construction limits and not encroaching upon the buffer zone. Sharmin Al -Jaff April 10, 1995 Page 3 ' UTILITIES I Sanitary sewer service is available to the site from the west; however, sanitary sewer is not deep enough to service Lot 4 without an ejector pump in the lower level. According to the plans, the applicant is proposing the use of a 3 -inch forcemain which is not desirable nor necessary in this situation. There are alternative measures to be employed such as an ejector pump from the lower level. Staff recommends that Lot 4 be required to make use of an ejector system for the lower level so that the main level and above will be on a gravity sewer system. This is much less of a maintenance item for the homeowner and, from a reliability standpoint, a superior alternative. Water service is available from Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to extend a 6 -inch water service line down for water service to the new lots as well as fire protection. As denoted in the alternative development proposals, this site can also be served by public utilities and streets from the north through a public improvement project. If this application is approved, staff recommends that the sewer and water construction be in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities should be turned over to the City for ownership and maintenance. The applicant will need to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the ' necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements. STREETS ' Back in September of 1991 in conjunction with Lundgren's WillowRidge subdivision which lies directly to the west of this site, access and utility service to this site were explored. Utilities were extended to the west line of this site in conjunction with WillowRidge's development proposal. Access into the Ravis parcel from WillowRidge was another matter, however. The Ravis parcel does have frontage along Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) which allowed other alternatives to provide access to the Ravis property rather than WillowRidge. Staff concluded at that time a cul -de -sac from WillowRidge was not feasible. A cul -de -sac from Lundgren's WillowRidge would have involved losing a lot of trees and by the time the cul -de -sac was extended through to the Ravis property, there was very little property left to ' be developed. Staff has recently explored some other alternative development possibilities on the Ravis property and adjoining parcels. Attached is a memo that was sent to the residents lying south of Lake Lucy Road and west of Powers Boulevard (Attachment 1). This memo explores five alternatives to subdividing the neighborhood. Staff met with the residents regarding the alternative development proposals back on March 9, 1995. At that meeting there was numerous discussions pertaining to private driveway access points along Powers Boulevard as well as all of the options listed within the memo. The general consensus was that no one alternative could be completely agreed upon by all affected parcels. ' Staff did propose Option E as a viable option in developing the neighborhood, including the Ravis parcel. This alternative also provided the most flexibility for the other adjacent parcels to subdivide as well. The private driveway proposal, as submitted, limits access to only the Ravis parcel and no future access to the adjoining parcels. Staff feels that this area can and should be developed under a different alternative which includes a public street. Therefore, at this time staff recommends that the subdivision as proposed be denied due to premature street access to development. If a private driveway was allowed to be ' constructed, the remaining parcels (Kohman and Infanger) will have limited subdivision potential, if any. Sharmin Al -Jaff April 10, 1995 ' Page 4 I STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this subdivision proposal be denied on the basis of premature street access to the site. Staff has demonstrated that public street and utility improvements can be installed to service this development and the adjoining parcels. Should the Planning Commission and City Council approve the proposal as submitted, staff has outlined the appropriate recommendations and conditions below. ' 1. Utility construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over the sanitary sewer and water lines. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 2. Importing or exporting material from the site will require approval of a haul route. The haul route shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. ' 3. Lot 4 shall utilize an internal ejector pump system to service the lower level of the dwellings, if necessary. The use of a forcemain shall be prohibited. 4. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Erosion control fence shall be installed at the edge of the construction limits and not within the wetland buffer zone. ' 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the final plat conditions of approval. ' 6. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for extending municipal utilities to the north line of Lot 2 for future extension. Lots 2, 3 and 4 will be charged at time of building permit a hookup charge in the amount of $2,425 each lot. 8. The applicant shall receive the necessary access pennit from the Carver County Highway Department for relocating the driveway access prior to the City signing the final plat. �j. 9. Direct access to all lots shall be limited to the proposed private driveway. A cross - access easement agreement shall be prepared by the applicant to maintain access to Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 ' via the proposed private driveway. 10. The applicant shall design and construct a storm drainage system to convey runoff from the development and pretreat the stone runoff to SWMP standards to discharge into the wetlands in ' lieu of paying SWMP water quality fees. The applicant shall pay the City a SWMP water quantity fee in the amount of $2,811.60. This fee is payable prior to the City signing the final plat. Sharmin Al -Jaff April 10, 1995 Page 5 11. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The applicant shall submit a letter to the City documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. 12. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year storm events and provide ponding calculations for the stormwater quality pond in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The grading plan shall be revised to include a storm drainage system which will convey runoff from the private street to the pretreatment pond. 13. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the utility improvements shall be required for review and formal approval by the City Council. Construction plans and specifications shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications & Detail Plates. ktm Attachment: Alternative Development Proposals c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g A eng \d i an e \planning \rav i s. p pr 1 1 1 II IJ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: vti s �'„ c� �1 LS OWNER: c--.-j c a- -r�, ADDRESS: L 44_-, a P 0 1'5 0 I V�Q , ADDRESS: ,1� , s - 3i 7 GL55E_y1 TELEPHONE (Day time) $2 % _ �? S'3 - 9 TELEPHONE: �5�' i� 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW /Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading /Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit X 02 - 7 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review F/ Notification Signs 115-0 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB /Metes & Bounds Win' ; , - . 10. Subdivision $ TOTAL FEE $ /! /CZ c cw A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8 X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME G v `L-,— zJ Ac / LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION I PRESENT ZONING 5 �� REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION ti-�— REASON FOR THIS REQUEST S � QF ,C This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. Signature of Applicant /bat r� Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be malled to the applicant's address. 1 1 1 1 'I Ail Noac.rAber 1984 Ch an k aSSe.v►, AN. To : Sha rrn in A1- 0a -F ba �ieVe. 'E" tie. +Qj i n forr M&i ;ov wi a S s! s i t►1 G u i Y► e V Q� t4 d {- i s 'E �. S CA LA cL tccLi.ov% CQolode.v► G lo w /acres) Su bnL.ffed (,u IL- Yvt0V ej t v c Lw k aSsQ Vi 1 4L ca4sQ- w Qr }O A e. -der e cQ L t t � 'VA O J Q h a�� t. Lt. S Q+ �� cL � S O Y` @ c t l Y e. S 'n o w YJ I o c.� i v► w p r i on i a w vi a Yk Q_ a Q. I wa be o i hL o W- L a Q. An aSEA-i k e.,, a. -Fib w a s - E 1. Y SC-601 S!I Sfewl W Z -t1^ i JC S $O roan! S *lest l O-x. o 'F <<aSSQ.S . 'H 0 WV-b VQ.Y+ , a S u o Wec�, t' �Q. co Yk r 4:0 I i VQ. ►v► o. ru r a 1 setting . 7`h i s broyiAe Lc W; 4k a. 1 4rwe. tof -r rov% cc., G c cQ lr¢ v. G �O a O VI 4L NJ 'for kS o % ftcL y0- a- l4.V�q� gcLra�R.N. G� w Q-rQ. a e, to o tkis 6 4 VLL x0 r o ear'- 1 Ott 6 6 6 0 p o w e,v+s lg 1 vd ►"OWe.HS 'J lVdr WCLS 4. WO-11 �WIa�K�B�Med+ 1'�O4Cjr L t t � 'VA O J Q h a�� t. Lt. S Q+ �� cL � S O Y` @ c t l Y e. S 'n o w YJ I o c.� i v► w p r i on i a w vi a Yk Q_ a Q. I wa be o i hL o W- L a Q. An aSEA-i k e.,, a. -Fib w a s - E 1. Y SC-601 S!I Sfewl W Z -t1^ i JC S $O roan! S *lest l O-x. o 'F <<aSSQ.S . 'H 0 WV-b VQ.Y+ , a S u o Wec�, t' �Q. co Yk r o C a.�n.�asSey. 'no's Gk*.Wge.cQ " Sigh+ - �ca it'� l4 0 v eVI t h v. � w I'v Sigmrs. Given c� a r i m a. V , 4 at r L t V% w �cavct i hc.re_a.50 i�owerg Y31v w.M w i4 e. d eci(A ed w�. wok.1d rn o y Qa. w t% Q. ^ w a. -'r to i V. V.. T m Ey 0, vks okr o i0 i+ 4 ea o y i Y► a t V% c o ys a -F e.r s a s VK a l Q.r 1 o f w : f k a vt a. �.� 1n a ti,,,, IL tit t �bt.0. ( 0.t b1 ` Q.V► a C'k+ - �1 t S a- ISO YJ Y` o 0. C. 0 .�so WrOVccQ�. � wi-��, a�Qd; Eia�a.S L4 vi s t-t y0 0 �. 1n� y h Q.'lr i Y Q..y►� Q w.'� . Y �o � LL.) Q.- tw tk� - �ir►ti. of oew�,ars — C. a. V l.cx-A ScILrV�yors �M Sy��.c.i ary G- a�rie� a. �tcL t� K cQ i V i S t 0 yt , � � 4 u. i r e.ti+,.. Qr k� s 4 ►,► � S ►1 \ h a y � � o-E s � k a.'� J i 1 - Inn a .e:b s - L - o 6% o. V% a A 10i- c a r• e. W Q.1 l CX6 oy o. J o+ s i z Q v. 4 1 e. S g. r 1 a ,� a �. Q-1n a u. w 1 ► lo-C a. 3) T4 e - - b 4 i I t -E 5 i h w ' 4- -� 1, 4 s Y• r c k v% cl i K9 4- V% r }� Y o w o t A V% e Q s._ : +� e S yt1 1 h i w. a�► C a w g u o 1 v.. �-X S'� t v► a 1 �(1 G o �c ti`{ y k �_� S 'T h e Lt.+ i 1; -t ti a r o cQ ►'� l a v�� rr� a e. s e.yIt. we. �ay�. CXC- ;..vIQL Inn a .e:b s - L - o 6% o. V% a A 10i- c a r• e. W Q.1 l CX6 oy o. J o+ s i z Q v. 4 1 e. S g. r 1 a ,� a �. Q-1n a u. w 1 ► lo-C a. 3) T4 e - - b 4 i I t -E 5 i h w ' 4- -� 1, 4 s Y• r c k v% cl i K9 4- V% r }� Y o w o t A V% e Q s._ : +� e S yt1 1 h i w. a�► C a w g u o 1 v.. �-X S'� t v► a 1 �(1 G o �c ti`{ y k �_� S 'T h e Lt.+ i 1; -t ti a r o cQ ►'� l a v�� rr� a e. s .. 1 1 or �.�<<i'�►c�. 1 S c„r e b K S,t�►�. _ Yte ,rid a -p I a k 1; v a. c. \ $, � e. e. + 1% Q. c ► t 1 c s ± v e .0— 4 ,�.a.- �r o 1 1n y o. S+ CL+ S o w.o o f �► Ne. C V % V, c s Q, r e %n^. o V 42 B a r u - b 4L I - .Q. k -Q, 10 r o io o s e io la► � Geld , a.r. G-Iaw ACrgLe� wtt11 r eg,S ;s 0 i W-t SavQ- C 61a.c.k Wal��t) g.hd %3royt a -p I a k 1; v a. c. \ $, � e. e. + 1% Q. c ► t 1 c s ± v e .0— 4 ,�.a.- �r o 1 1n y o. S+ CL+ S o w.o o f �► Ne. C V % V, c s Q, r e %n^. o V 42 B a r u - b 4L I - .Q. k -Q, 10 r o io o s e io la► � Geld , a.r. G-Iaw ACrgLe� wtt11 r eg,S ;s 0 i W-t d a m t l e s i i -AR o c. ,2.A e. vk Cat w N% �tas s n , I S Yi s r¢ V66 Q v► S Q 4 1 0.V 2. Q s 1 a 1n S O Y` O Q d *1 '� l 01� o.. l 4 h O Y` W�.G�� 1 01�► t� G K 41 t4 `to ti e�4rd S CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM I Sharmin Al -Jaff ' December 13, 1994 Page 2 Recommendations: ' 1. Revise Grading and Utility Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the Grading and Utility Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. ' enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo u CITY'OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner H FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: November 23, 1994 SUBJ: Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis Planning Case 94 -22 SUB and 94 -7 WET 1. have reviewed the preliminary plat subdivisioi) ajld have the following requirements: , 1, Submit street names to Public Safety for approval. 2. A ten foot clear space must 3. Fire hydrant location is ai around fire hydrants. g:\safetyVnl\goldglow. 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I FROM: Jill Kimsal, Forestry Intern DATE: April 11, 1995 SUBJ: Tree Inventory, Golden Glow Acres, James C. Ravis The applicant has submitted a tree inventory the plan are required replacement plantings to front yard of the existing home, are along the will be following the southern and lower east( removed. The diameters range from four to ) appears to be on the neighbor's property. Five trees ( 35, 36, 37, 38, and 45) have. been , py coverage calculation. Also noted on All trees, excluding those in the y lines of the site. Since the new road a number of trees are scheduled to be not including a 48 inch willow that on the property being developed. Trees through 38 t% There will be a three to four foot cut:.for the roadway ad the edge of the cut. Since they appear to be on the neigl be readily assumed. The applicant's canopy coverage calculations are in order the survey, but do not appear to be e questionable survival chances. the four trees are 2 to 10 feet from hr's property, their removal can not y will be required to plant istruction, trees 51 through same preservation principles vosed roadway'. 13 replacement trees as `showh on the tree inventory. -During' 58 must be protected °at all times .by, tree. protection fencing shall be applied 'to tf6gs near the existing house and along the Whether or not trees 35 through 38 and 4 +i resolved by the applicant considering they removal or preservation may also make a ed,tn the development plans must be development property. Their in canopy coverage calculations. MEMORANDUM Ming ^Masco® A Division of Arkla, Inc. Sincerely, ' Richard J. i on, P.E. , Senior De gn Engineer Engineering Services , 612- 342 -5426 cc: Mary Palkovich I Terry Jencks 700 West Linden Avenue ' P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440 -1165 1 994 December 1, 1994 Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff Planner I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive ' P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 ' Re: 94 -22 SUB and 94 -7 WET Golden Glow Acres James C. Ravis ' Dear Ms. Al -Jaff: Enclosed is the subdivision print for this project with our gas ' mains shown in red. Individual service lines are not shown. Natural gas service is available to this development from the main shown on Powers Boulevard. No addition work is anticipated at this ' time unless requested by the builder or owner. The builder or owner should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco's Residential Energy Services, 525 -7607 or 342 -5123, to make ' application for natural gas service. Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal. ' Sincerely, ' Richard J. i on, P.E. , Senior De gn Engineer Engineering Services , 612- 342 -5426 cc: Mary Palkovich I Terry Jencks 700 West Linden Avenue ' P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440 -1165 STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ' PHONE NO. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 772 -7910 FILE NO. ' November 30, 1994 City of Chanhassen, Planning Department Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis, Lake Lucy (10 -7P), City of Chanhassen, Carver County (City 194 -22 SUB and 94 -7 WET) Dear Ms. Al -Jaff: We have reviewed the site plans (received November 23, 1994) for the above - referenced project (Section 2, T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. The project site does not contain any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands; therefore, no DNR permit is required. ' However, it appears there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. The project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on the project through our review of applications submitted under ' these other regulatory programs. 2. The site does not appear to be within a floodplain district. ' 3. The proposed plan does not indicate how the stormwater will be managed. You are advised that the DNR would object to having the stormwater routed directly to the WCA wetland. Stormwater sedimentation /treatment basins, or other appropriate stormwater treatment features, should be included in ' the stormwater management plan. If stormwater is routed directly to the wetland, it can cause sedimentation and water level bounces that are detrimental to wildlife values and water quality. ' 4. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas and that the ' wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 5. The project area appears to be within the 1000' shoreland district of Lake Lucy (10 -7P), a recreational development water. The development must be ' consistent with city's shoreland management regulations. In particular you should note: a. The project area (lots 3 and 4) contains steep slopes. Topographic ' alterations should be minimized in this area. b. The structures in the development should be screened using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by ' the city. C. The applicant should be commended for planning to place a 10' buffer of natural vegetation around the WCA wetland. This buffe ._st,�p will improve wildlife habitat in the area and improve th i tZ6`Eer ' quality of the wetland. a CITY OF CHANHA AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER City of Chanhassen, Planning Department ' Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II November 30, 1994 Page 2 6. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: ' a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the ' construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. ' b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. C. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters ' jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772 -7910 should ' you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist ' JR /cds c: Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer ' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann City of Chanhassen Shoreland File J 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE (612) 361 -1010 - 600 EAST 4TH STREET, BOX 6 FAX (612) 361 -1025 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 i COUNTY OF CAQVEQ - 1 December 30, 1994 1 TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II 1 FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County E n g ineeI,��' SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis Following are comments regarding the Golden Glow Acres Preliminary Plat transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated November 21, 1994: 1 1. Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: 1 Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2 -lane Roadway 2 -lane Roadway 1 Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 120' 150' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 1 4 -lane Roadway 4 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 120' 140' 170' 1 County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 (Powers Blvd.)is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The right 1 of way shown on the plan includes a 100 foot corridor. The corridor as shown would meet the minimum recommended needs for an urban four lane roadway. 1 The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 1 2. Construction of the proposed driveway access with CSAH 17 is subject to the access permit requirements of Carver County. Carver County would require that the existing access be removed as shown on the plan. The preference of the County is to limit the number of accesses to the County Roads and have the accesses be public roads if possible. If there is any possibility of the house to the south outside the plat connecting to this new entrance, that ' would be desirable. RE('.ElVED Affir mative ualO O p p ortunity E If q PP y P y � 1 Printed on Recycled Paper Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste ;111' OF CHANHASSEN 3. Any P utility public utili lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right -of -way are subject , to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 4. An proposed g rading and installation of drainage structures within the right - of - way of CSAH ' YP P g n g 17 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed ' to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right -of- way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be ' completed in a manner that leaves the right -of -way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final ' condition of the county highway right -of -way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 6. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right -of -way must be approved by the County. ' When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right -of- ' way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. 7. As this area develops, the traffic on CSAH 17 will increase. The increased traffic will ' generate an increased noise level. The County would consider any type of noise abatement project, if necessary, to be the responsibility of the City or the developer. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plat for the proposed development. , C�� 1 Developer: James Ravis 1 Location: 6660 Powers Boulevard Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to subdivide a 2.22 acre parcel into 4 lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6660 Powers Boulevard, Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. ' 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. ' Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937 -1900 ext. 120. If you 1 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. 1 Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 6, 1995. i NOTICE OF PUBLIC ' HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, APRIL 19, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive Project: Golden Glow Acres 1 Developer: James Ravis 1 Location: 6660 Powers Boulevard Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to subdivide a 2.22 acre parcel into 4 lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6660 Powers Boulevard, Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. ' 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. ' Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937 -1900 ext. 120. If you 1 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. 1 Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 6, 1995. i �!J Robert & Lois Petersen Wendall & Blanche Gravlun Harry Murphy 6650 Powers Blvd. 6270 Blue Jay Circle 1215 Lake Lucy Road ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Russell G. Kohman William & Juliann Infan er g Lawrence &Kathleen Kerber 6730 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 6740 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 6420 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 , Melvin Allrich & Bonnie Thomas Jennie Hays Layton & Madelyn Paine ' 6681 Powers Blvd. 6691 Powers Blvd. 1092 Shenendoah Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 , Paul & Sheryll Kreuter State of MN in Trust Russell Paul y ' 1090 Carver Beach Road c/o Carver Co. Auditor 1031 Carver Beach Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 600 East 4th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 ' Stanley & Joy Javurek 6780 Redwing Lane Randy Tikalsky 6801 Chaparral Lane James Manders 6791 Chaparral Lane ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jan & P. Mahin Jeffrey & Laura Bros Pallar & Sokkha Ngep 6781 Chaparral Lane 6771 Chaparral Lane Chanthan Hour Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 6770 Chaparral Lane ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Gary Mundahl Craig & Stacie Prescher Ingrid Gunnbjorg Stephens 6780 Chaparral Lane 6790 Chaparral Lane 6800 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Joseph & Kathleen Hamilton Allan & Connie Ott Steven & Sandrea Kvidera , 6820 Chaparral Lane 6840 Chaparral Lane 6850 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Mark Lathrop Mary Gerk Robert Boe 6850 Utica Lane 6831 Utica Lane 6801 Utica Circle ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Daniel & Gwen Hennessey Gary & Ann O'Neill Bruce & Merridith Arnold 6800 Utica Circle 6830 Utica Circle 6850 Utica Circle ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David Ronnei 6666 Mulberry Cir. E. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kathleen Mary Koch Kenneth & D. Earhart Edward & Carol Jannusch 6870 Utica Lane 6880 Utica Lane 6831 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Scott & Joanne Reinertson R. Chris &Mazy Rumble Thomas &Linda Trusty 6801 Utica Terrace Chanhassen, MN 55317 6861 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 6871 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Kenneth & Karen Anderson Richard C. Ersbo Mark & B. Rasmussen 6881 Utica Lane 1211 Lake Lucy Road 6729 Mulberry Circle ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven & Sharon Veno Wesley & Pamela Johnson Mark & Pamela Wagner 6730 Mulberry Cir. E. 6719 Mulberry Cir. E. 6735 Mulberry Cir. E. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Greg & Martha Pomerantz 1321 Heather Ct. Barry & Murlyn Pace 1331 Heather Ct. David & J. Meyer 6683 Mulberry Cir. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Steven & D. Manning Michael & S. Arbisi Roy & J. Anderson 6687 Mulberry Circle 6693 Mulberry Circle E. 6695 Mulberry Cir. E. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David J. Batt Lundgren Bros. Const. Jeffrey & M. Elder 6699 Mulberry Cir. E. 935 Wayzata Blvd. E. 6696 Mulberry Cir. ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David Ronnei 6666 Mulberry Cir. E. Chanhassen, MN 55317 y °lljty 0% � vt we out -� w 9 t tio - r W - t1Gl - 11, City Council Meeting - Sep. - jmber 9, 1991 `'Dumping nutrients into the site. Some of it stems from Lake Lucy Road itself where the salts which apparently contain some phosphates aswell are flushing right off the street and into the system. So what we're proposing to do is to capture a portion of those Lake Lucy Road flowages and run it through an expanded pond with the goal that the total flowage through that area should be of a higher quality than it is today. We reviewed revised access plans at the west curb cut to save some trees and I've got a series of documents. I'll.put that up later if need be. There's a very significant stand of trees there and there's really only 1, or 2 good places to come out on Lake Lucy Road for the west entrance. The applicant spent a good bit of time trying to develop a plan that "s - the most sensitive to.protecting those trees as possible but the Planning Commission wanted us to explore the idea of realigning the road so it sits on the Ortenblat driveway believing that that would be less destructive. We did look at alternatives to do that. What we found was that there was only a nominal improvement in saving the trees and in exchange for that we lost some of the bigger trees. In addition, doing that would wind up filling part of the ONR wetland. Now the DNR doesn't normally allow you to fill wetlands but they said if you could really demonstrate that you had substantial tree preservation they might consider it. Based upon what we know today, I don't think we could sell them on that. I think there was a net benefit of 40 caliper inches of trees which is hardly substantial enough to allow filling of a wetland, I don't believe anyway. An approved landscaping plan has been prepared. However we do have several changes or additions to that which were being recommenged that we carried forward throu h the Planning Commission. ccess an u i ities to adjacent to lots owned y Ted Coey an JIM Ravis were explored. We concluded that sewer and water should be stubbed into the Ravis property. The Ravis parcel, if you could put the location map back up. The ravis parcel is just located to the east of the site in this vicinity here. I believe Mr. Ravis has, if I'm not mistaken, this lot and this lot back here. We did conclude that sanitary sewer and water should most appropriately be extended from this P into that area. Access into that area was another matter however. That if that lot does have frontage out on Powers, there are some alternatives for providing driveway access to it. We did conclude that a cul -de -sac however extending from the Lundgren property made no sense in that area. You lost a lot of trees to get it through there but by the time you got the cul -de -sac through the Ravis property, there's no Ravis property left to develo So ' effective means of serving the roperty. T e Coey property, we did look at various a erns Ives or real igning a western portion of the street through there hopefully to avoid those trees. Mr. Coey's not involved in this plat. He did talk to us earlier on about the possibility of becoming involved in it and decided against it. But we did look at it from a topographic standpoint and again we concluded that it's not impossible to do things. Run things out to that property but you did incur significant environmental damage to do it and there really didn't seem to be any reason to pursue it any further. As far as utilities go to the Coey property, we are recommending that the sanitary sewer be stubbed out that way. The lift station that going to be built in the Lundgren plat is deep enough so it can provide some service to some of those properties west of the site for a short distance and we figure we might as put that in as long as we have the ability to do that. On the last matter, the Planning Commission did not make this a condition. They made a suggestion or some such language that Lot 14 be looked at as being removed from the plat. We're not sure really how to approach that. The developer can speak for themselves but they believe that the economics of the project are contingent 44 �I L 0 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19; 1995 PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVISION 2.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6660 POWERS BOULEVARD, GOLDEN GLOW ACRES, JAMES RAVIS t Public Present: ' Name Address ' Shaimin Al -Jaff presented the staff repoit on this item. Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners to staff? Thank you. Is the applicant here ' and would they like to make a presentation? Jim Ravis: I certainly think the staff. ' Mancino: Could you please state your name and address. Jim Ravis: Oh. My name is Jim Ravis. I live at 6660 Powers Boulevard. I'm the applicant. Staff certainly has looked at options. I don't necessarily agree that they're the best options. I think the major, key issue here is access. I'd like to ... this is an aerial photograph of this property. As staff stated, I applied for access to this property through the Willow Ridge development, when that development, even before it submitted a preliminary plat. I tried to work with the city to gain access at that time. I believe the staff recommended that that ' access be granted. It was not. There are only a few ways you can gain access. The one through Willow Ridge is now blocked off. There's an access here between the Kohman and Infanger property and I'm sure that would make them extremely happy to work on that, although there may be an existing access there. The one that the city has proposed, I believe has all the same disadvantages as any other. One of the main points that staff made was they would lose less trees there. That is not true. You can see that there's a significant amount of mature trees in here. Those trees are now mature. There are other trees back here and at the public, there was a town meeting or whatever you would like to call it, where all the property 40 James & Norma Ravis 6660 Powers Boulevard Bill Infanger 6740 Powers Boulevard Russell G. Kohman 6730 Powers Boulevard Bob & Lois Peterson 6650 Powers Boulevard Roy Anderson 6695 Mulberry Circle Ed Jannusch 6831 Utica Terrace Anita & Harry Murphy 1215 Lake Lucy Road ' Larry Kerber 6700 Powers Boulevard ' Shaimin Al -Jaff presented the staff repoit on this item. Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners to staff? Thank you. Is the applicant here ' and would they like to make a presentation? Jim Ravis: I certainly think the staff. ' Mancino: Could you please state your name and address. Jim Ravis: Oh. My name is Jim Ravis. I live at 6660 Powers Boulevard. I'm the applicant. Staff certainly has looked at options. I don't necessarily agree that they're the best options. I think the major, key issue here is access. I'd like to ... this is an aerial photograph of this property. As staff stated, I applied for access to this property through the Willow Ridge development, when that development, even before it submitted a preliminary plat. I tried to work with the city to gain access at that time. I believe the staff recommended that that ' access be granted. It was not. There are only a few ways you can gain access. The one through Willow Ridge is now blocked off. There's an access here between the Kohman and Infanger property and I'm sure that would make them extremely happy to work on that, although there may be an existing access there. The one that the city has proposed, I believe has all the same disadvantages as any other. One of the main points that staff made was they would lose less trees there. That is not true. You can see that there's a significant amount of mature trees in here. Those trees are now mature. There are other trees back here and at the public, there was a town meeting or whatever you would like to call it, where all the property 40 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 1 owners and that. The gentleman who owns this property, Mr. Kerber, said he had gone out and counted them and we would definitely lose more trees by going that way. The access I'm asking for is for here. At the time that I applied for access, at the time that Willow Ridge developed, I was told I had sufficient access on my own property. I was also told that that ' access would remove a significant number of trees that the city did not want to let go. This is a photograph that I took off of my deck last week. That was absolutely not true. You can see the trees that were there before Willow Ridge developed. All of those trees have been ' removed, so I really have a hard time understanding the logic that has been given to me over the past 3 or 4 years. These are large lots. There are very few trees to be removed. I also have another two photographs. This is a photograph I took last week of Lots 3 and 4. You can see that those lots are not vegetated with a lot of trees. This is ... and the other picture that I gave you, this photograph of Lot number 2 and you can also see that there's ... I feel that at this point in time the only proper way to develop this property is through the private driveway. It does not preclude the staff or the other part of the development that they recommended from going in. It does not preclude these other properties to develop. There's an existing access over there. It could be, you also could convert private driveways to a U ' shape or semi - circular street ... So I guess what I'm saying is that I feel ... I was told that this was the proper access... I have provided the staff with a written response, or the Planning Commission and City Council with a written response to the staff report. I've also provided , you with a letter from the engineering firm that is helping with this development. I think those are extremely pertinent to this situation and I'm not going to read them. It will only take you a few minutes to read those letters. I do have some significant concerns about the ' staff report. In three areas, the preservation zone. I think that recommendation was not well thought out because it's near the homes. Those trees need thinning. I provided a picture with a letter. Those canopies on those trees are already innerlinked significantly. If the trees are ' not thinned, the growth will be impeded. We will not get the majestic trees that we ought to have in residential areas. I also have a significant issue with the drainage. There was two recommendations in the report provided. Staff made one. Gave no reasons for it. I don't believe at this time, and I have not been asked prior to this, to provide a drainage plan or what they've said is necessarily feasible. I've discussed it with the engineering firm. We don't know if that's the right way to propose any drainage solution. This is a significant slope ' on these lots. We're trying to maintain that. If you read the DNR report, we've been asked to maintain that. We provided a significant buffer zone from the wetlands. I think a preservation agreement certainly is in' order there, but I think that until we arrive at a drainage , solution, we need to take a look at that and then do what's right. I have some other concerns in terms of building requirements which I have outlined in my letter to you. I feel we only ought to live with one requirement, not double requirements, and those are outlined. I think one of the things that I see that's, I believe the adjacent property owners may not agree to, is all the plans for the alternate plans provided by the staff, give you a maximum housing density. I don't think that that's necessarily appropriate for every development, and I'm sure 41 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 there's some property owners here tonight adjacent who may give you the same answer. What we're doing here and what we proposed I think fits in with the topology of the land and I guess what I'd like to ask is you approve the preliminary plat and I'll be happy to work with ' staff to try to resolve these issues on preservation zones, drainage and building requirements. Thank you. u Mancino: Does the commission have any questions for Mr. Ravis? Thank you. Sharmin, have you had time to read through the Ravis' letter? Al -Jaffa One of them, yes. The Ravis' letter, yes I have. But the engineer's letter that was submitted just before the meeting, no I haven't. Jim Ravis: I apologize for that but even though my application has been here since November, I did not ... until Friday ... so he could not provide a response until today. Mancino: Thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Fmmakes moved, Nutting seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor- and the motion carried. The public healing was opened. Mancino: This is a public hearing. Would anyone like to speak on this issue? Bill Infanger: Yes I would. I'm Bill Infanger, 6740 Powers. I'm one of the two properties most affected by this development and I concur with the city planner. If Mr. Ravis goes ahead as he plans to go ahead with this, I'm simply shut off because... local access to County Road 17, which I doubt that the County's going to approve. In addition... which I would do for the same reasons Mr. Ravis wants to do it. Mainly to profit from it. I'd move elsewhere. Concern about the condition of the area. So am I. I'd move elsewhere in Chanhassen where it was conducive but his plan essentially says, we'll make it more congested and I'll leave at my expense and I believe at the expense of the owner next to me. So it's certainly not in my interest, and I basically concur with the city planner. Mancino: Thank you. Bill Infanger: Thank you. Russ Kohman: I'm the neighbor next door to him. I live at 6730 Powers Boulevard and. Mancino: And your name please. 42 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 1 Russ Kohman: Russ Kohman. Mancino: Thank you. Russ Kohman: And I've got several pine trees that sit right on the property line, right on the ' edge. Yeah. Where he plans on putting the private road in and if he puts the road in through the edge, the pine trees will come down because they will not withstand it. You know if you cut to their roots, eventually they'll die and I can't afford to ... I bought the land, I'm a single guy and I bought the land because I wanted to be left alone. I want to live that way. And the same as my neighbors. He bought his house. He's got a big house and a large family and he wants to be left alone. And this is, we didn't really want people building around us or right on top of us. And we didn't want no, another right -of -way coming in the back way. Or coming along side my property, reducing the value of my land and this would throw more , taxes towards... eventually. Not right away. But eventually we would... Mancino: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Robert Peterson: My name's Robert Peterson. I live at 6650 Powers Boulevard, which is the property just to the north of Mr. Ravis. I'm not here to speak against their development. I'm for it. They've been good neighbors and I don't have any problem with them developing that property. I'd like to offer some suggestions however that would benefit both of us. But first, ' let me see if I understand Sharmin. Al -Jaff: Sharmin. , Robert Peterson: I don't know if you, did you get the impression that most of us at that meeting favored this plat? Al -Jaff: No. I said there wasn't a plan that was favored by everybody. Robert Peterson: Oh, okay. I didn't hear it well, sorry. Because most of us at that meeting , didn't favor that plan. My suggestion, I went back to two. Can I go over there and point? Mancino: Yes. Robert Peterson: The person that builds a house on this lot, well first of all when we moved in here a long time ago, the house was oriented towards the views. The major view which is this way towards the wetland and towards Lake Lucy, you can see sometimes. Now anybody building a house here blocks that view. I understand how that can happen. I feel that the , Ravis' could re- locate these two lines, forcing this person to build farther to the south. That 43 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 would help me some but it would do something for the Ravis property. Right on this line here is where the grades starts to drop down quite a bit. If that line were moved to the south, this property would become a walkout lot which is more valuable than, otherwise it's flat. It takes a little property away from the other two but they're still well above the minimum. They're still about 20,000 feet ... I'd like to see if this plat goes ahead to discuss forcing this person here to build at least 55 feet away from that line. Naturally I'm selfish but that's my interest so I can maintain that view without looking at that edge of this house here as much. And actually ... the view. Second part of this is, it's unusual to have the back of a house facing the front of a house. That's pretty unusual. We have the same situation here too. I just have ' some suggestions on the layout here to be considered that would help my property and the Ravis property. That was my major concern is the view of my house. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Larry Kerber. My name's Larry Kerber. I own the property directly north, 6700 Powers ' Boulevard. The largest piece. Also the piece they have the whole road proposed on. I have no intention of giving up a half acre of my land so people behind me, to the south of me can develop. It also turns all my property around from the way it lays naturally. I have all walkouts now to the west. That road would turn everything around. It would also take out about 180 of my trees that were planted on the west side of my property. So I'm sure there's a solution for this but I don't think we've maybe looked at all the options. I definitely don't, yeah this one gives me 9 lots. 9 little slivered lots that are totally reversed from the way I think they should be and the way the land lays but I'm sure there's a solution but I am not in ' favor of this one here. But I do think Mr. Ravis should be allowed to develop. At some point he bought his place. I know he bought additional property 5 years ago, I'm sure to develop. He bought out the back of the two lots, or one of the lots of the people who were ' just up here. At some point he did a subdivision to get that property of his and again when Lundgren came in, they told him he could develop without access through there so I feel there's an ordinance in the city for four houses to a private driveway. I don't know if he ' meets all the conditions but I think he should be allowed to develop without me developing. I don't know why I should, why this development should be contingent on me and Bob Peterson and everyone else splitting their lots up even if they don't want to. So I think he should develop as long as his plan is legal and meets all the specs of the city. Mancino: Thank you. Hempel: Madam Chairperson, maybe I could address a couple of points here that are coming out of public comment. First of all staff did go through and develop all the documents for developing the neighborhood. One of the major concerns we had was access onto Powers Boulevard. That is an arterial street. It's a County Road. It's not, they have jurisdiction with 44 F l L.� Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 1 regards to access points. As Mr. Kerber has indicated, he didn't want to see his property develop in this fashion because it changes the lots Mr. Kerber has envisioned and developing his access points off of Powers Boulevard. I don't believe that will be allowed through the County. ...to look at at trying to group neighborhoods as a whole to make it work from a public street standpoint. To include public improvements. Sewer and water, storm sewer and yet give some flexibility on these parcels when it comes to developing it ... all that coming at once in order for this to work. On the other hand we didn't want to see each individual property owner coming in with a private driveway proposal out onto Powers Boulevard. Mancino: So with what we're seeing as Option E, the chain of events, which one does have I to come in first? Hempel: The neighborhood puts together to petition the city to do a 429 project which is an , assessable project, then it would be in the hands of the City Council to determine whether they want to proceed with conducting the feasibility study and then ordering the improvement at that point. It would probably take close to 50% of the benefitting property owners. ' Mancino: To do that, thank you. Mr. Kohman, you wanted to come up? Thank you. Russ Kohman: I'm not too good on words. Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone else? Robert Peterson: As it relates to most of us that have about an acre maybe, or right at that, that are left over, except for Larry Kerber, we could get one more lot out of our property and it would work fine. I've gone through the numbers and I don't know if the rest of them have but you take your acre ... cut it in half, pay for a city road, pay for the sewer and the assessments and the development and all of that, there's no profit to be had in making one more lot out of your property. Believe me there isn't. I can show you the numbers. There's no big advantage for me to cut my ground in half, and I bet everybody else would say the ' same thing. To get one more lot. It doesn't work. I'm talking about a selling price of $55,000.00 to $60,000.00 on a lot. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Bill Infanger: Just one clarification. I don't necessarily oppose Mr. Ravis' development. I just oppose his development if it cuts me off from doing exactly the same thing. Mr. Peterson's comments are apropos. We've also gone through a cost analysis to see if in fact it could be profitable and the answer might be, no. Not right now, but maybe later on. What I 45 1 7J Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 ' don't want is a situation where because of what happens now, I can't develop later on. Thank you. ' Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to close the public hearing. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Ron. ' Nutting: This one's messy. At this point I am in support of staffs recommendation to deny. Y I'm not in any position to develop or to lay this thing out property. There needs to be more ' work done. I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the development because we're not talking about moving this one forward. I'm not sure what can be done. Any time you have this many property owners in a competing interest, you're either at each other's throats or you come to some accommodation that isn't going to work for everybody. So I guess I'm, at this point I think there needs to be some more interaction between staff and the developer as well ' as continued communications to see if we can come up with something that makes this work. I guess Dave's comments sway me a bit in terms of the access onto Powers. Diane's not here anymore but I'm echoing Diane's comments from the past. From a public safety perspective ' and the private drives. I think this is a real problem area for future development so that's all I have right now. Mancino: Thanks. Ladd. Conrad: It's the Planning Commission's job to make sure that areas develop properly. It's the planning staffs job to do that likewise. The plan before us tonight does not do that. It just doesn't and because it doesn't, and because it forces individual development which is really not what we're about, I think this has to be turned down. This is not, the design in front of ' us, and I'm not talking about Option A thru E. There may be others. But what we see tonight is not the solution, and what we see tonight is not the way we can really develop one parcel at the expense of others. It's poor planning. Mancino: Thank you. Jeff. ' Farmakes: Nothing to add. No comments. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: No comments. 46 i Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Bob. ' Skubic: I agree with what Ron and Ladd have said. Mancino: Thank you. Do I have a motion? Nutting: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -22, for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown in the plans dated November 18, 1994 for the reasons as outlined in the staff report. Conrad: Second. t Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the ' preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -22, for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown in the plans dated November 18, 1994 for the reasons as outlined in the staff report All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: ' REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 52 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE ' FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, HARSTAD COMPANIES. Public Present: Name Address Bill Munig 6850 Stratford Blvd. Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road Keith Bedford 3961 Stratford Ridge Janet Carlson 4141 Kings Road ' Margie Borris 4071 Kings Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. ' Mancino: Any questions for staff? 47 1 • From the city planners, we understand that our position, as indicated to them by Mr. Ravis, is that we have no interest in pursuing any development now or in the foreseeable future and, therefore, are not MY OF would certainly be willing to pursue development, and the other (Kohman) might be willing to do so in the future. There has been no discussion with Mr. Ravis about this since a preliminary review at a Chanhassen Mayor and City Council Chanhassen, Minnesota EN DER ' 9 September 1995 ' Planning Commission be overruled. ' Mayor Chmiel; Councilmembers Berquist, Dockendorf, Mason, and Senn: We write this letter reluctantly, to address a situation we had believed was resolved. Recent conversation ' with the city planners, however, indicates otherwise. Moreover, it appears that our respective situations in ' the matter are being misrepresented. The problem revolves around the proposed J. Ravis `Golden Glow Acres' development which, as proposed, abuts our property. As proposed, and without further resolution, this development was rejected ' by both the city planners and the Planning Commission in April of this year. Among the reasons for ' rejection was the viewpoint, with which we concur, that "allowing the subject site to develop as proposed could hinder the development of the surrounding properties." This was consistent the view of the city planners that if the development proceeded as planned, "the remaining parcels (Kohman and Infanger) ' will have limited subdivision potential, if any." ' Among our concerns and the reason for this letter: • From the city planners, we understand that our position, as indicated to them by Mr. Ravis, is that we William Infanger Russell Kohman I cc: D. Hempel, S. Al -Jaff 0 have no interest in pursuing any development now or in the foreseeable future and, therefore, are not factors to be considered by the city in this matter. This is not the case. At least one of us ( Infanger) would certainly be willing to pursue development, and the other (Kohman) might be willing to do so in the future. There has been no discussion with Mr. Ravis about this since a preliminary review at a neighborhood meeting in March. • There appears to be a lobbying effort in this matter by `interested' third parties, whose reasons for support for the Ravis development and against the city fail to consider either of our views or the ' predicament left to us should this continue as planned and who may individually benefit should the Planning Commission be overruled. ' • One way or another, all of this is being given to you in anticipation of a forthcoming council meeting, from only one perspective, without consideration of its consequences to either of us or possibly others in the area. ' • If this development were approved as is, any future development on our part would be questionable and, at best more expensive. It would further place us in the position of having to negotiate access with persons who view us as former antagonists. ' In conclusion, we believe that the city's position to date has protected our interests and, contrary to other notions, is appropriate. We believe there are other ways to reach consensus of benefit to all, not the profit of a few. We do not believe that these have been adequately explored. ' Sincerely, William Infanger Russell Kohman I cc: D. Hempel, S. Al -Jaff 0 If this plan is approved for a road between Kohmans and Ravis, I want a signed agreement from Mr. Ravis that any trees that die in the future will be removed and disposed of at Mr. Ravis expense. Russell G. Kohman ' JERRE A. MILLER JEREMY S. STEINER* ' WYNN CURTISS ' Real Property taw Specialist, certified by the Minnesota state Bar Association. ' Sharrnin Al -Jaff Planning Department ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 I Dave Hempel Assistant City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Golden Glow Acres Plat Dear Ms. Al -Jaff and Mr. Hempel: ATTORNEYS AT LAW 400 NORWEST BANK BUILDING 1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 January 12, 1996 RECEIVED JAN 16 RECD CITY OF CHANHASSEN JOSEPH C. VESELY (1905 -1989) 612- 938 -7635 FAX 612 - 938 -7670 The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the status of the Ravises' discussions with then neighbors regarding the City's conditions for approval of the plat of Golden Glow Acres and to summarize the Ravises' position in regard to those conditions. The Ravises are prepared to accept the following as conditions of approval referencing the numbered paragraphs on pages 10, 11 and 12 of the April 19, 1995 Staff Report to the Planning Commission, copies of which are attached to this letter: Condition 1 . It is our understanding staff is prepared to recommend waiver of the proposed condition requiring a conservation easement over the vegetated areas. Conditions 2 -8, 10, 12, and 17 . These conditions are generally acceptable to the Ravises. Condition 9 . The Ravises understand the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Development Contract form will require the developer- installed public improvements to be initiated within one year and completed within two years from the date the Development Contract is executed, and they are prepared to agree to this condition with the understanding the Development Contract will provide they may request subsequent extensions of these deadlines from the City Council. The developer - installed improvements covered by the Development Contract would be limited to the sanitary sewer system and city water system to be installed to service the four lots and the extension of city water c:\file\t avis \cltmiliass.ltr VESELY, MILLER & STEINER, P.A. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Sharmin Al -Jaff ' Dave Hempel January 12, 1996 ' Page 2 service to the north line of Lot 2 for future extension as discussed in my comments on Condition 11, ' below. Condition 11 . The Ravises would agree to extend city water to the north line of Lot 2 for ' future extension to the north. The Ravises will not agree to extend sanitary sewer to the north line of Lot 2 because it is unknown at this time how the property to the north of the Ravises will be ' developed, and it will most likely be more practical to bring sanitary sewer service from the north at such time as development occurs. Attached to this letter is a copy of a letter, dated October 15, 1995, addressed to Ms. Al -Jaff and signed by all of the affected property owners, supporting the , position that the Ravises should be required only to extend city water service to the north line of Lot 2. Condition 13 . The Ravises will agree to record a Cross- Access Agreement against the subject property establishing access to and from Powers Boulevard for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 via a private driveway easement. It is our understanding staff is prepared to delete the requirement that "direct ' access to all lots be limited to the proposed private street ". Condition 14 . The Ravises are prepared to install storm drainage improvements as shown ' on the revised Grading and Utility Plan prepared by Demars - Gabriel Land Surveyors that Jim Ravis delivered to Mr. Hempel when we met on August 2. They do not propose to construct a storm water treatment/detention basin as this installation is opposed by the neighboring property owners and does , not appear to be necessary. The Ravises are prepared to pay the $2,811.60 SWMP fee. Condition 1.6 This condition should be modified to delete reference to the storm water detention pond and storm drainage system improvements. Cul -De -Sac Easement The proposed condition requiring the Ravises to dedicate a ' cul -de -sac easement over Lots 1 and 2 for future public street purposes originated from the City staffs designation of so- called "Option E" as the preferred option for future development of the ' properties surrounding the Ravis property. A photocopy of "Option E" is attached to this letter. As stated in the October 15 letter to Ms. Al -Jaff, the affected property owners unanimously oppose "Option E" as the preferred alternative for development of this area. Therefore, we believe dedication ' of this easement to the City will serve no purpose, and the Ravises are not prepared to dedicate the cul -de -sac easement as a condition of plat approval. As we have stated previously, I am of the opinion the City does not have authority to exact the transfer of this property interest from the ' Ravises without compensation because of the lack of any proportionality between the exaction of this interest and the City's remote interest in acquiring the cul -de -sac to provide for the nearly non- existent possibility development of the property to the north will require acquisition of the ' cul -de -sac easement. a\file\ravis \chanhass.ltr ' Sharmin Al -Jaff ' Dave Hempel January 12, 1996 Page 3 ' The Ravises have made a concerted effort to arrive at a consensus with their neighbors as to the development of their property, and we believe the above proposal reflects that consensus. The ' matter is presently scheduled for hearing before the Chanhassen City Council on January 22 for approval of the preliminary plat. It is requested that staff review the Ravises' proposal as stated in this letter and contact me to discuss whether or not it appears to be acceptable. ' Very truly yours, �-I " "^ 7 51> Jeremy S. Steiner cc: James and Norma Ravis, with enc. Planning Director, Mayor and City Councilmembers, with enc. Roger Knutson, Esq., with enc. JSS:njj Enclosures 1 c: Vi lc\rravis \cha nhass.ltr Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 ' Page 10 RECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-22 ' for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans dated November 18, 1994 for reasons outlined in the staff report ' Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the preliminary plat, staff recommends the ' Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94- 22 for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans dated November 18, 1995, with the following conditions: ' 1 The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' ' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. ' 2. Building Department conditions: ' a. Revise Grading and Utility Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to Znal.-plat-approval. b. Revise the Grading and Utility Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. ' This should be done prior to-final-plat C. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to ' issuance of any building permits. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: , a. Sul mit street names to Public Safety for approval. ' b. A tea foot clear space must be maintained around su h drants. e y C. Fire hydrant location is accepted. , [I Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 11 ' 4 Full park and trail fees shall be collected . d per city ordinance uz lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. ' 5. The applicant shall pp provide the city with a $500 escrow prior to the city signing the final plat for review and recording of the final plat documents and guarantee boulevard restoration. ' 6. Importing or exporting material from the site will require approval of a haul route. The haul route shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 7. Lot 4 shall utilize an internal ejector pump system to service the lower Ievel of the dwellings, if necessary. The use of a forcemain shall be prohibited. 8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best /Management Practice Handbook Erosion control fence shall be installed at the edge of the construction limits and not within the wetland buffer zone. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the final plat conditions of approval. r 10. The applicant pp t shall report to the City Engineer the Iocation of any drain tiles found ' during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain file as directed by the City Engineer. 11. The applicant shall be responsible for extending :municipal utilities to the north line of Lot 2 for future extension. Lots 2, 3 and 4 will be charged at time of building permit a hookup charge in the amount of 52,425 each lot. r 12. The applicant shall receive the necessary access permit from the Carver County Highway Department for relocating the driveway access prior to the City signing the ' final plat. 13. Direct access to all lots shall be limited to the proposed private street. A cross- access ' easement agreement shall be prepared by the applicant to maintain access to Lots 1, 2 3 and 4 via the proposed private street. 14. The applicant shall design and construct a storm drainage syste.-n to convey runoff from the development and pretreat the storm runoff to SWMP standards to discharge into the ' - wetlands in lieu of paying SWIMP water quality fees. The applicant shall pay the City Golden Glow Acres ' April 19, 1995 Page 12 a SW, water quantity fee in the amount of $2,81 1.60. This fee is payable prior to the City signing the final plat. , 15. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer- edge signs construction begins and wn71 charge the applicant. S20 ner sign. The applicant shall submit a letter to the City documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project , 16. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year ' storm events and provide ponding calculations for the stormwater quality pond in accordance with the City's. surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The grading plan revised to include ' a storm arainage system which will convey runoff from the private street to the pretreatment pond. 17. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the utility improvements shall be r required for review and formal approval by the City Council. Construction plans and specifications shall be in accordance ,with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications & Detail Plates. ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Alternative development proposals. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle dated April 10, 1995. , 3. Application. 4. Letter from the applicant dated November 24, 1994. 5. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated December 13, 1994. 6. Memo from Mark Littfin dated November 23, 1994. 7. Memo from Jill Kimsal, dated April 11, 1995. 8. Minnegasco dated December 1, 1994 - ' 9. Memo from DNR dated November 30, 1994. 10. Memo from Carver County Engineer dated December 30, 1995. 11. Public hearing and property owners list. 12. Preliminary plat dated November 18, 1994. �I r] Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Ref: 1 Preliminary plat of Golden Glow Acres Ref: 2 Alternative Development for Ravis property and adjoining parcels • LUR File No. 95 -4 Dear Ms. Al -Jaff. ' In response to the proposed approval of Ref: ?, the City Staff developed five alternate area development proposals as documented in Ref:2. The City Staff also designated one of the five alternatives (Option E) as the preferred method of area development. The undersigned property owners whose property adjoins the proposed plat and would be most impacted by Option E are unanimously opposed to Option E. The reasons for this are as follows: 1. Constructing a public street down the middle of these subject properties is detrimental to the Kerber and Petersen properties. In the case of the Kerber property the lot values would be significantly impacted, due to the loss of walk -out topologies and is estimated to double the development cost. The Petersen property would gain one lot which is of marginal economic value. Both Robert Petersen and Larry Kerber are opposed to Option E. 2. The addition of a cul -de -sac to the Ravis property has been estimated to cause a 20% decrease in the value of the existing home and a significant decrease in the value of proposed Lot 2. ' 3. Mr. Kohman desires any development to have minimal impact on his property. The cul -de -sac will cause significant traffic noise to the family areas of the Petersen, Ravis and Kohman properties. The adjacent property owners recommend the following ' alternative and support approval of the preliminary plat of Golden Glow Acres with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending water to the north line of Lot 2. October 15, 1995 Sharmin Al -Jaff Planning Department City of Chanhassen ' 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Ref: 1 Preliminary plat of Golden Glow Acres Ref: 2 Alternative Development for Ravis property and adjoining parcels • LUR File No. 95 -4 Dear Ms. Al -Jaff. ' In response to the proposed approval of Ref: ?, the City Staff developed five alternate area development proposals as documented in Ref:2. The City Staff also designated one of the five alternatives (Option E) as the preferred method of area development. The undersigned property owners whose property adjoins the proposed plat and would be most impacted by Option E are unanimously opposed to Option E. The reasons for this are as follows: 1. Constructing a public street down the middle of these subject properties is detrimental to the Kerber and Petersen properties. In the case of the Kerber property the lot values would be significantly impacted, due to the loss of walk -out topologies and is estimated to double the development cost. The Petersen property would gain one lot which is of marginal economic value. Both Robert Petersen and Larry Kerber are opposed to Option E. 2. The addition of a cul -de -sac to the Ravis property has been estimated to cause a 20% decrease in the value of the existing home and a significant decrease in the value of proposed Lot 2. ' 3. Mr. Kohman desires any development to have minimal impact on his property. The cul -de -sac will cause significant traffic noise to the family areas of the Petersen, Ravis and Kohman properties. The adjacent property owners recommend the following ' alternative and support approval of the preliminary plat of Golden Glow Acres with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending water to the north line of Lot 2. Sharmin Al -Jaff October 15, 1995 Page 2 2. The City Council grant a variance to allow for five houses on a private driveway as provision for possible development concurrently or in the future by William Infanger. Russell Kohman has indicated no desire to subdivide his lot now or in the future. 3. The Ravises agree to grant to William Infanger access to the private driveway and utilities (water and sewer) should it be needed concurrent with the Golden Glow development or as part of a future Infanger development. The cost to him will not exceed 25% of the cost of the water, sewer and driveway specific development and construction costs of Golden Glow Acres. We are willing to meet with City Staff to discuss the above matters as soon as a meeting can be arranged. William an arry ulidnn In Kathleen Kerber wers Boulevard 642U Po der§ Boulevar Russell Kohman 6730 Powers Boulevara Robert and Lois Petersen �mes and Norma Ravis 6650 Powers Boulevard 6660 Powers Boulevar cc: Kate Aarenson, Planning Dire,tor --- Hon. Don Chmiel- - City Council members, City of Chanhassen - -- Jeremy Steiner V 1 F 1 i t a 1. L ul � :O she li tt.�. E• . :: .p t M y t - $Q,tt R' . ' . OF ri?( E 1 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995 ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could I make one comment? Just to give some direction to the Park and Rec Commission. My issue with the fees at all is the annoyance of pulling up to the gate and not realizing that ' there is a fee. So if we can do away with the expense of the gate attendant. Do away with that unexpectedness of the fee, somehow maybe get those revenues with user fees. Maybe just through the teams utilizing the fields. I think we're spending too much money on the gate attendant and creating an annoyance at the same time that it's not work it. So I guess the charge is to find out a different method of collecting those fees. Councilman Berquist: To that issue, the gate attendant provides some small modicum of security and the security issue is going to do nothing but escalate and the costs associated with that are going to do nothing but , escalate so you've got to maintain some presence. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, you've got a 16 year old kid out there at the gate who is so far removed , from what's going on further in the park, a modicum of security is exactly what it is. Mayor Chmiel: Well, I've even seen that happen Colleen where people will come up to the gate attendant and told them a given problem. All he does is use the phone and dial 911 and we have our officer there to take care of the situation. Sharmin Al -Jaff: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The site is located west of Powers Boulevard, ' approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.2 acres into 4 single family lots. The property is zoned Residential Single Family. The average lot size is 23,304 square feet with a resulting net density of 1.87 units per acre. Access to the ' subdivision is proposed to be provided via a private street which will serve all four lots. One of the main issues 29 1 Councilman Mason: Well I think a couple of issues have been raised. I mean we do, and we talked about it two weeks ago. I think we need to look at the security angle and I think Steve raises some very good points as ' well. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to direct the Padc and Recreation Commission to review the Lake Ann Paric paridng pcnnit fees within a 60 day time period looldng for an equitable resident/non- resident method of raising revenues from Lake Ann and/or the rest of the packs within the community. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously. PRELIlVHNARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS, 6660 PO_ WERS i� BOULEVARD, GOLDEN GLOW ACRES, JAMES RAVIS. J �" r Public Present: Name Address James Ravis 6660 Powers Boulevard , Jeremy Steiner Suite 400 Norwest, Minneapolis Russ Kohman 6730 Powers Boulevard Bill Infanger 6740 Powers Boulevard , Larry Kerber 6420 Powers Boulevard Sharmin Al -Jaff: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The site is located west of Powers Boulevard, ' approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.2 acres into 4 single family lots. The property is zoned Residential Single Family. The average lot size is 23,304 square feet with a resulting net density of 1.87 units per acre. Access to the ' subdivision is proposed to be provided via a private street which will serve all four lots. One of the main issues 29 1 City ouncil Meeting - September 25 1995 Y g P of concern is access to the site. Back in September of '91 in conjunction with the Lundgren Brothers ' Development of Willow Ridge, which lies directly to the west of this site, access and utility service to the site was explored. Utilities were extended to the west line of the subject property. However, the extension of a cul- de -sac was a different issue. A different matter. A cul -de -sac from Lundgren's Willow Ridge would have involved losing a lot of trees and by the time the cul -de -sac was extended to the Ravis property, there was very little property left to be developed. Staff has recently explored different options to see how this property could be developed as well as the surrounding parcels. By surrounding parcels we're looking at the 7 parcels located within this block. As mentioned, staff recently explored alternatives to look at how this area could possibly develop. Five alternatives were prepared. Staff met with the residents regarding the alternative development proposal on March 9th of '95. The general consensus was that there wasn't one alternative that could be completed agreed upon by all affected parcels. Staff recommended that Option E as a viable option in developing the neighborhood, including the Ravis parcel and basically this option would construct a public right -of -way that would serve the Ravis property as well as the properties within the block. Some of the parcels will have to gain access via a private drive, such as the Murphy's parcel off of Lake Lucy Road and a portion of the Kerber parcel again off of Lake Lucy Road. This alternative provides the most flexibility for the other adjacent parcels to subdivide as well. The private driveway proposal as submitted by Mr. Ravis limits access to only the Ravis parcel and no future access to adjoining parcels. Staff believes that this area can and should be developed under a different alternative which includes a public street. Therefore at this time staff is recommending that the subdivision proposal be denied due to premature street access to development. Should the City Council decide to approve this application as submitted by Mr. Ravis, we have a set of conditions that we have prepared for you and we would recommend that you would adopt those recommendations. _Thank you. - Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Council have any questions of Sharmin at this time? Councilman Senn: I have one. How was E settled on versus effectively A which takes all of the traffic via a public street up to Lake Lucy Road, which seems like more the way it should be? Dave Hempel: Councilmember Senn, maybe I can address that one since I put together the five alternatives. Option A before you has the street centered... center of the parcel to service all of the adjacent properties. What that alignment did was eliminate the stand of oak trees at the center, or the middle of the property against the low lying xvet area... probably more devastating to the property... Councilman Senn: And B and C the same answer? Dave Hempel: Very similar, yeah. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay? ' Councilman Senn: So your conclusion is that most of these properties have to be served off of Powers? Dave Hempel: The majority of the properties should be serviced off of Powers, that's correct. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Jeremy Steiner: Yes Mr. Mayor. I'm the applicant's attorney. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to address. 1 30 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995 ' i Jeremy Steiner: Mr. Ravis is here tonight as well. My name is Jerry Steiner. I'm Mr. Ravis' attorney. I guess before speaking to the merits of the plat I'd like to address a point that came up with staff today. Since the Planning Commission recommended denial in March, we've had extensive discussions with staff in an attempt to ' resolve the staff and Planning Commission's concerns with the preliminary plat. ...that are outlined in the staff report. I should say that Mr. Ravis has basically agreed to accept all but one of the conditions in the staff report. We have gotten hung up on that last condition and have been unable to resolve that with staff. We've been working on that as recently as last week, which was last Thursday. Last Thursday we received the most recent copy of the staff report and that issue is still unresolved. We feel we really haven't had sufficient time to continue to explore a possible resolution with staff. We were prepared to proceed and then this morning Mr. Ravis did have some discussions with Councilmember Senn about the preliminary plat and about the final unresolved issue and Councilmember Senn felt that there'd be some merit in setting up one more meeting with staff with the Councilmember in an attempt to facilitate matters. We are more than willing to accommodate that request at any time any member of the Council and staff is willing to meet with us. We're certainly willing to talk about trying to resolve that final issue. I in fact contacted staff to request a postponement of tonight's meeting and was initially told that we could continue the matter to the November 13th Council hearing. I was contacted later in the day by staff and was told that Dave Hempel, he had spoken with yourself Mr. Mayor and ' the City Manager and that they didn't want to grant the postponement until November. So I guess I'd like to deal with the issue of postponement first before getting to the merits. I will acknowledge that we are pretty much at loggerhead with staff on the final issue which involves the proposed cul- de- sac... provide access to some of the surrounding parcels but it's certainly conceivable that issue will get resolved with further discussion. I know that Mr. Ravis and myself, just as much as Council, would prefer to have these matters negotiated and something... with staff worked out outside of the public hearing. We're certainly willing to give it another effort. That's up to the Council whether or not we'll be given the opportunity to do so ... whether it's appropriate to , continue the matter... Mayor Chmiel: Good. My reasoning for that is that to just have one individual Council member indicate that this be tabled, should come before the entirety of the Council for the entirety of the Council to come up with a decision. And if that's the choosing this evening, I have no objections to it. Jeremy Steiner: We certainly don't have a problem with that process. We're put in an awkward position of telling one Councilmember no, we don't want to go... Mayor Chmiel: I understand. Jeremy Steiner: You know. We just want to have... Mayor Chmiel: I just want to put a clarifier on why I took the position that I did. Is there any specific questions that any Councilmembers may have of the applicant? Steve. In regards to maybe that one issue or. Councilman Berquist: I just want a clarification on this deal here. The meeting with, did you advocate that ' they table it? I mean you didn't say we're going to table it. You said call... Councilman Senn: No, Mr. Ravis called me and told me he was uncomfortable with proceeding on it at this ' point so I suggested that he withdraw the item and stuff and do that because, okay. That's basically what that was. 1 LJ 31 1 r--1 L I City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995 James Ravis: We worked very hard with staff to try to resolve... Councilmember Senn advised me that this is not the place to negotiate. So we've been trying to ... continue the process so we can bring something to Council something that everybody can agree to. Jeremy Steiner: I should say, we really have made a good deal of progress. There's is one difficult issue which still needs to be resolved... James Ravis: Which given, you know what happens in the Council meetings, I think that was a good recommendation on the Councilmember's part. Councilman Berquist: Well I think an important point is that it's perfectly within your rights to, I think, to call and ask that something be pulled from an agenda. James Ravis: And we did that. Councilman Berquist: And I understand you did and I'm not certain at what point the decision was made that that request not be honored. Don Ashworth: If I can respond to that. I wouldn't have had a problem deleting the item had we been informed that they wanted that deleted before it was advertised. One of the concerns that I had was, is how many people from the public are we going to have coming into this meeting who may want to take and provide some testimony on this item because it was published and people were told that it would occur this evening. And that was the primary reason that I stated that they should be making their request at this meeting. The entire Council makes a decision to table or not table. You make a decision. Do you want to have those people who have come in to potentially testify on this item. Do you want to allow them to speak this evening or are you just going to tell them to go away? James Ravis: You know we've been trying to work this issue for several months. The problem is that until it's down in writing, we can't tell what, where everybody's at. And we can talk a lot and until it's in writing, we don't know where everybody's at. I just received the last staff report on Thursday. I travel a lot. It takes a lot of time to get a hold of people. People aren't available so I just barely talked to Councilman Senn at 4:00 as he was going out the door. I was not able to get with Jerry until this morning and I was out of town until 4:00 today. It makes it pretty difficult to try to arrive at a solution when you get the information at the last hour and that's why we asked for a postponement. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What I'd like to do this evening is if there are some residents in and adjacent. Michael. Councilman Mason: Maybe if I'm seeing this wrong. I have a concern here and it doesn't deal with what's going on here at all but I'm hearing that one council person suggested tabling something, which certainly is fine but then I read on the staff report on page I 1 and 12, and I quote. Staff met with Mr. Ravis and Councilmember Senn on Friday, August 18, 1995 to further discuss concerns Mr. Ravis had with staffs conditions of approval. Councilmember Semi directed staff to consult with the City Attorney on ways in which the Ravis' could be reimbursed for construction of a private driveway if the adjacent parcels request to subdivide and propose to use the private driveway. I read this, and I hear this and I'm not sure, I quite honestly have lost a handle on what's going on here. These kinds of things, I personally don't think should be recommended by one Council person without everyone having a chance to discuss it. And I'm certainly am not holding, you know that, do you understand? I J Up► City g Council Meeting - September 25, 1995 James Ravis: I can understand... Jeremy Steiner: We can certainly direct staff to notify all members of Council if there are going to be any future meetings on this item. In fact like I said, we're happy to... Councilman Mason: Right. No, I understand that. I'm just concerned about what I see is happening outside of Council chambers that I don't think is appropriate. Councilman Berquist: Well I disagree... I Councilman Senn: Well I guess I don't really view it as... Mayor Chmiel: Hold it. Hold it. Let me just cut this off right now. I think whether it's right or wrong or not, let's get on with what we're looking at right now. We have people here who may want to discuss as to what the proposed project is and I'd like to at least get their opinions from them as to what their feelings might be. So with that I would like to ask anyone who is here this evening who. James Ravis: If we're not going to get the proposed postponement. Mayor Chmiel: We could possibly do it right afterwards too. Postpone it to carry it over. But I'd like to get the input. Jeremy Steiner: ...to address the merits of the preliminary plat. If Council's going to proceed to take action on it. James Ravis: Right. If we're going to proceed to take action, we want the opportunity to present the merits of the case. Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. I Councilman Senn: Well, I want to get one thing straight. When you called me you said you want to withdraw this item. It has nothing to do with the tabling action tonight. Do you wish to withdraw this item from consideration tonight? I James Ravis: Yes. I asked for a postponement. Councilman Senn: Okay. So I don't know what the issue is over tabling one way or the other. James Ravis: I requested the postponement because you know, what Councilman Senn said to me was, do not try to negotiate in the Council meeting. That's not the right place to do it. The right place to do it is with the staff out of the Council meeting and that was his recommendation. I think that was a valid one and I asked to have it postponed because of that. Mayor Chmiel: Well do not negotiate, that's something in itself but I think Council has the final word over staff r so that may not be true. But what I'd like to do is ask those people to come forward and if there's anyone who has an} real concerns regarding this project, please come up and state your name and your address and the concerns that you have. 33 1 I City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995 Russ Kohman: My name is Russ Kohman. I live at 6730 Powers Boulevard and I've got the adjoining property to his property. And the pine trees that, well one of the reasons why I bought the land was the big pine trees they've got up there. And if you put your road in there, these pine trees are going to come down. He's worried about a weeping willow that's on my property. I take 3 cuts with my lawn mower and that's a 32 inch cut lawn mower because it even, hits the tree. And pine trees, I can't even go around without going on his land and I'll lose those pine trees if you put the road in because it's going to be well within a 5 foot lot line that he'll be cutting in with the bank. And that's one of the reasons why I bought the land. I don't plan on selling it ... I've got no inkling of selling it—and somebody's left my telephone number to somebody and they called Friday night. And it's a private number. Not even listed and somehow they got it. Now I've had telephone calls from other people, other things and they say it's through your voting deal that they've gotten the number. It's an unlisted number and just because I come to these voting deals and put my number down, doesn't mean it's right to have it be given out to just anybody. Councilman Mason: Who called you Russ? Russ Kohman: Some neighbor. I don't know who it was. He called about my dog barking at night and my dog was in the house that night. My dog was in the house Friday night. It's a neighbor back down that's got a kennel in the back of his place. I don't know what his name is. I don't like getting telephone calls in the middle of the night. Especially when you've got to get up at 4:00 in the morning. Councilman Berquist: So in terms of the proposal to develop the land behind you. Russ Kohman: I don't like that corner lot. I never wanted a corner lot to begin with and he cuts into the partial and wants to put part of the road in, it's going to kill all the trees. And these trees are up there 60 feet in the air. It's going to cost him a lot because I don't want to take them down. I didn't want him to take them down to begin with. Councilman Berquist: They're on his property are they? Russ Kohman: They're on m}' property. Councilman Berquist: They're on your property? Okay. Russ Kohman: But they're well within 5 feet. That's it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Russ. Is there anyone else? Bill Infanger: I'm Bill Infanger from 6740 Powers. I've written to Council on this issue... My concern is not so much Mr. Ravis' development. If Mr. Ravis wants to develop, that's fine. I'm concerned that I won't be able to do the same thing in the future. And I am very much interested myself in pursuing development in the future or in selling the property. But I can't do that under the proposal as I understand it. And that is my main... I really would like to work out a compromise if the compromise includes provisions so that we have access to the development without incurring enormous expense. And that's really my principle objection. I understand that, or my understanding is that, as has been suggested, that I have... development. Thank you. Councilman Berquist: Question. Have you and Mr. Ravis ever spoken about this? 34 City ouncil Meeting - September 25, 1995 Y g P BillInfanger: No. Councilman Berquist: Never been discussed? Does Option E, as prepared by the city, address. And you haven't either? You've never spoken with the gentleman? Does Option E as presented by the City provide your back lot with some access that's developable? Bill Infanger: I think that if a compromise can be worked out, if there's going to be some discussions with the city regarding a compromise, I'd like to be part of those discussions because I am interested in working out an amicable settlement. I don't want to win. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Anyone else? Larry Kerber: My name is Larry Kerber. I own the parcel at 6600 Powers. I guess my first question, are we here to decide, is this going to be decided tonight or is this going to be tabled? Are we just taking comments now? I lost track to be very honest. Mayor Chmiel: I'm asking to get comments from the residents that are here this evening because. Larry Kerber: Okay. So it may or may not be decided tonight? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Larry Kerber: Okay. The problem I have with this, you notice where the road goes in. Anything concerned with this road bothers me. I have no problem with him developing with a private driveway. That's fine. Keep his development on his side of the property. That's where it belongs. But where they're proposing that road, if you'll notice, 90% of that road is on my property. That takes out over a half acre of my land to benefit two neighbors behind me and Ravis to the south. With that road approximately 180 trees are going with mine to save 18 of his. If the trees are an issue, it multiples 100 times when you put the road on my property. Like I said, I have no problem with him developing. It's just his development, I've got to back up a bit. I guess when Sharmin spoke, she talked about conditions and I'd like to know what those conditions are if it's passed with a private driveway because I think some of those are going to affect me. Are we going to get the conditions here tonight or? Sharmin Al -Jiff: Mayor? I did give you a copy of the staff report. I left it outside for you two weeks ago. Larry Kerber: Okay, but the condition numbers have changed since then? Sharmin Al -Jaff: There are two conditions that have been added to that staff report and I will share it with you later. After you're done speaking. , Larry Kerber: How do I know what they are right now? I think the biggest condition, correct me if I'm wrong. You wanted, you were asking if it passed with a private driveway, you were asking for a future turn around like right -of -way on his lots coming from my property. So that part really bothers me. If he needs a road in that a property, let's do it right now. Don't put part of his development costs on me later, which will cause me to turn my whole parcel around and lose all the trees. If a road is merited, let's take it right now. He's the developer. Step up, takes his cost. That's part of developing. This parcel was never the size it was. It's been added to ' over the years. What'd you start Nvitli Jim, an acre? Acre and a half? And then bought out the back of the 35 1 1 City Council Meeting - September 25 1995 5 g P > neighbors. It just sounds like to me he created his problem. I'm willing to work with him but I just don't want ' to take a lot of money out of my pocket to solve problems that he created. But I think that's all. Not knowing what the conditions are, the other conditions on there. My big concern is that future turn around which has got a big effect on me. What that will do to my property. It's now all taking Powers Boulevard but the road will turn those four lots around and the existing house. The existing house will then have to be revamped to take the new street. Either that or... It will mean tearing down the existing garage also. If any buildings have to be torn down for a road, let then Mr. Ravis do it. He's the developer. Not me. Councilman Berquist: Correct me if I'm wrong. In looking at the Options A through E and looking at how they impact Ravis' land and your land. It would appear to me that your maximum return is going to come from utilizing Option E. Have you analyzed it like that? ' Larry Kerber: I've never analyzed it because I am not in favor of it. I don't, my property was set up. I have existing sewer and water assessments. I paid my assessments. I have 7 stubs. I paid by road assessments. I never planned on putting a road in. My property was set up with the stubs to be developed to Powers Boulevard and now with the reassessment of Lake Lucy, with another driveway on Lake Lucy Road. I have no interest in a road. Councilman Berquist: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Larry, what's the total lots as it shows on Option E? Are your specific lots. Sharmin could you just show that entirely? Larry Kerber: It would be Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Mayor Chmiel: Got it. She just drew a line around it. Larry Kerber: Oh, I'm sorry. Those would be my lots and we've got some preliminary. Dave ran some costs on the road. Preliminary costs but his costs are only requesting doing a road with usable base the way it is. Right now there's probably 200 feet of that road. ...there's no material on site available to re -base that road. It would all have to be tracked in. It would turn all the drainage around on five of the lots. The lots, instead of walkouts would now become tuck under or daylight front situations. Reversing the drainage from Powers Boulevard back now would go around the back of the house to the front. It just, it does not accommodate the lay of m} land now grade wise. My whole property would have to be regraded. Not only the road part. And the biggest concern I have is all the trees it would take out. It will virtually eliminate two- thirds of the trees on that property. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Larry Kerber: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Okay, I'll bring it back to Council. I think what we could look for is a couple ' things. One, let the neighbors also meet with Mr. Ravis to maybe try to come up with a conclusion and meet also with staff and more or less take it from there because it looks like there's some properties in addition to that, if it were to go through the way that the proposal Mr. Ravis would be land locking some of those people and I think that's a concern staff is looking at. So with that, Steve. 36 Ci ty g Council Meeting - September 25, 1995 ' Councilman Berquist: I'm going to move to table. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I've got a motion first on the floor with a table as he brought out. Is there a second? , Councilman Senn: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Discussion. Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: We can certainly table it. I'm not sure that when we go into further negotiations that my decision will not be that this is very premature. It seems to me that, I mean it's a tough issue because you've got lots of land owners here. But it doesn't seem to me that, it seems like all of the neighbors have been working through the city or working with each other indirectly and there are lots of opposing interests here and I think it would benefit everyone to have a joint meeting about it. Although even then I'm not certain that it would be resolved because you all have different interests. I guess I have nothing more to say about it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike. Councilman Mason: Tabling sounds like a good idea. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. r Councilman Senn: I want to understand one thing from staff, okay. As far as what Mr. Ravis is proposing, as it relates to the private driveway, that scenario as it looks like here pretty much satisfies most of the concerns we've heard from the neighbors. It does not eat up Mr. Kerber's land. In fact it doesn't impact Mr. Kerber's land at all. Kate Aanenson: Except that Mr. Kerber's intent is to have direct facing lots onto Powers Boulevard, which is an unacceptable situation with the County so we're trying to improve his situation. Councilman Senn: No, no but I'm saying. That has to do with when Mr. Kerber's lot develops. Kate Aanenson: But it's our job to look at the future and to say how can this property be developed. We don't want to tie Mr. Kerber's hands in the future of not being able to get access onto Powers so we have to look ahead and say which is the best way. And that's why we're here because we're kind of at an impasse. We have a lot of competing interests here and we're trying to have you help us give direction as to which way we should go. Councilman Senn: But you have to negotiate that out with Mr. Kerber at the point that he wants to develop his property. Kate Aanenson: We've tried. We've had a series and series of meetings and that's why we asked that it come before you and you help us give some direction. This has been going on for quite a while and we're kind of at an impasse and we're kind of looking for you to give us some more direction, which way you're leaning on this. Councilman Semi: Okay. But as far as Mr. Ravis's proposal goes, okay. It does not impact Mr. Kerber's property. I'm just talking about the private driveway now. That's all I'm talking about. I 37 ' City ouncil Meeting - September 25 1995 Y g P Kate Aanenson: What do you mean impact? Councilman Senn: Well he's not, Mr. Kerber was concerned, he got up and said that the private driveway was fine with him. His problem is with the road and the amount of his land that the road eats up. Okay? And the neighbor to the south got up and said we just want access off of that private driveway if we develop our property or do whatever and he's got in his private driveway, he's got the cul -de -sac or whatever in there to do that so those properties can access. ' Kate Aanenson: No. That's not a true statement. Councilman Senn: Okay. So that's not in there? Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's what Option E allows. ' Councilman Senn: Well Option E has to do with the roads. We don't have a picture here of what Mr. Kate Aanenson: Infanger's. Councilman Senn: We do not have a picture here of what you had up on the overhead. Dave Hempel: Councilmember Senn. The difficulty staff had with the Ravis proposal N it limits future subdivision of the Kohman and Infanger parcels due to the city ordinance allows 4 homes on a private driveway. Councilman Senn: So it creates a variance situation? For the private driveway. Dave Hempel: True. Councilman Senn: By giving them access. Jeremy Steiner: Mayor Chmiel, there's one point I should make that's a critical piece of information. It's very apparent that Mr. Ravis is simply caught in the middle between competing interests, literally and figuratively. Mr. Kohman and Mr. Infanger are his neighbors to the south. Mr. Kerber's his neighbor to the north. They'd like to see this develop in very different ways. What Mr. Ravis is prepared to do, and what we have indicated he would agree to do, is dedicate the 60 foot cul -de -sac laid out about where it's shown on here. That would be the terminus of the road coming down from the north. If Mr. Kerber's property developed according to Option E, he would simply dedicate that with his plat. He wouldn't put in the street improvements now. It would just be there if that's the way it develops'in the future. That touches Mr. Kohman's property, I believe it is on the north side so if he needs access to get out to the north to Powers Boulevard... that would be available to that public street. We're not saying that we want to put it in that way. In fact Mr. Ravis would prefer to do it as proposed with just a private driveway and no cul -de -sac dedication. He's prepared to dedicate the cul -de -sac and then it's up to his neighbors to sort out what happens in the future. He's agreed to a compromise that will address both of their interests. The problem is, and the thing we're trying to get resolved with staff is the fact that that will then, if that street goes in in the future, resolve these four lots that Mr. Ravis is developing and paying for the street and other improvements twice. We're trying to work out a compromise. So I feel we ■ should point out that we have offered to do something that does strike a balance between these competing 1 38 City ouncil Meeting - September 25, 1995 Y g P interests and what happens in the future is up to the neighbors but. That could be next year. It could be 20 years. It could be never. Nobody can predict the future and we certainly have some very ... interests here. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Roger Knutson: Mayor, just to respond. Larry Kerber: Can I respond to that? Just I have the attorney. Mayor Chmiel: a second. Roger Knutson: What we've been talking about, just to bring the council up to date is, normally when you have a development contract you have, say if you're going to build that, you waive all your rights to object to the assessments. We've said that this time was a compromise, we wouldn't require that. We would just special assess the project and if you benefit you benefit. You pay. If you don't, you don't. ' James Ravis: Well it strikes me we're doing the thing we were trying to avoid which is negotiating something at the Council meeting... Mayor Chmiel: Right. Kate Aanenson: We just uncomfortable at staff that that wasn't our obligation to waive that. We felt that was the prerogative of the Council to do that and that's why we were uncomfortable doing it. We think that's a decision that should be made at the Council level. We're not going to vary from that and that's something that the legislative body should make a decision. like Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, we do have that motion on the floor with a second to table. And I would to call that question. Is there a time limitation on this yet? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it was tonight so. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. But they were willing to withdraw from that portion of it. Kate Aanenson: Give us a line of extension, sure. Jeremy Steiner: November 13th I believe is... I Councilman Mason: If I could. You know I think one thing we're also looking at here is I understand that there are essentially competing interests here and of course one group wants to do what's best for them. Would compromise or whatever. Another group wants to do what's best and another group wants to do what's best. But city staff is charged with doing what's best for the public and what's best for the city of Chanhassen and I'm kind of getting the feeling that there in lies the rub here because I understand what might be best for one group, is not best for the other but the city has to come up with the plan that while as it may not benefit everybody . 100 %, it has to be something that the city can live with. And if I'm not, that's what I see with the issue of the private drives and some of the other issues here. So I hope, well we just have to keep that in mind. 39 1 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think if the applicant is making the motion of withdrawing, do we even have to table Roger? Roger Knutson: Yes. They're not withdrawing their application. Any applicant has the right to withdraw their application. That means there's nothing for you to act upon. What they're really requesting is not to withdraw but table. Postponement of your decision. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the preliminary plat to subdivide a 2.22 acre parcel into 4 lots for Golden Glow Acres until November 13, 1995 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously. Larry Kerber: I have a question. What's going to change between now and then? Mayor Chmiel: We don't know Larry. If I knew, I wish I could tell you. Roger Knutson: If they knew that, they wouldn't need to table it. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 4,600 SQUARE FOOT CAR WASH BUILDING, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, AMCON CORPORATION. Sharmin Al -Taff: The applicant is proposing to construct a car wash facility. The site is located between Lake Drive East and Highway 5. The area of the car wash building is 4,600 square feet. The site is located in a ' highway business district and has access from Lake Drive East via a private driveway. The building will be constructed of decorative structural brick accented by a natural rock face concrete that will have one service bay and a pitched roof with dormers. And these are samples of the materials that will be used on the building, as well as a rendering. All services for the facility will take place inside the building with the exception of vacuuming the inside of the vehicles and staging area for the customers who wish to dry their cars. Parking for vehicles is located on the south side of the structure away from Highway 5. Stacking lanes will be screened by landscaping from views off of Lake Drive East and residences south of Lake Drive. It's a very simple site plan application. Staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to come forward and please state your name and your address and who you're representing. Dale: Mr. Mayor and Council members. I'm Dale... from Amcon Corporation. I'm the project manager... want to say that we've worked closely with staff to try and propose what was a nice project and compatible with the ' neighbors... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Do you have any problems with any of the conditions that are ' contained within the staff report? Dale: No I don't. We were at the Planning Commission 2 weeks ago and we're willing to comply with all of the recommendations. 1 40