9. Great Plains Golf Estates Preliminary PlatSTAFF REPORT
PC DATE: 8/3/94
CC DATE: 8/22/94
4,
' CASE #: 86 -31 SUB
' By- A1- Tnff•v
H
Z
U
IJ
a
0
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
CITY OF
CHANHASSO
Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 102.73 Acres into 36 rural single family lots and
two outlots, Great Plains Golf Estates
South of County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail), and west and east of Highway 101
(Great Plains Blvd.)
Don Halla
10000 Great Plains Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318
Roger Anderson & Associates
Suite 107
7415 Wayzata Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
�
D
W
F-
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
A2, Agricultural Estate District
102.73 acres
One unit per 2.85 acre gross
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - A2, Agricultural Estate District, & Co. Rd. 14, Pioneer Trail
S - A2, Agricultural Estate District
E - A2, Agricultural Estate District
W - A2, Agricultural Estate District
WATER AND SEWER: Unavailable to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is currently being operated as a nursery. A large number
of different sized trees cover the site. The northern and
northwestern portion of the site is heavily vegetated with mature
trees. The site generally slopes to the south and east. Some steep
slopes are located along the east.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Large Lot
Q
Quo �
n
BAND /MERE
PARK
- mAill
R
r
•� gT AQ 2
r� P1 N E AIL ( l rf.
t ,
SUBJECT PROPE TY
CREEK
H SSJ FA M D. I A ic
t fE
._ \ 1
i
LOCATION MAP
0
IF
- mAill
R
r
•� gT AQ 2
r� P1 N E AIL ( l rf.
t ,
SUBJECT PROPE TY
CREEK
H SSJ FA M D. I A ic
t fE
._ \ 1
i
LOCATION MAP
0
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 102.7 acres into 36 single family lots. The property is
zoned A2, Agricultural Estate District. This plat was originally filed in December, 1986. The
density at that time was 1 unit per 2.5 acres. Since that time, city ordinances have changed to
permit 1 unit per 10 acres, although the minimum lot size may be as small as 15,000 square feet
as long as septic and wells are accommodated on the lot. This subdivision is being reviewed
under the 1 unit per 2.5 acres based on extensions of the preliminary plat by the City Council.
The average lot size is 94,320 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1 unit per 2.8 acres.
The site is located north of Creekwood Drive, east and west of Highway 101, and south of
County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail). Access to the subdivision will be provided via Highway 101,
Creekwood Drive, and Pioneer Trail.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The two outlots shown on the plat contain an existing business and a residence.
These outlots must be shown as lots. Allowing the outlots to remain will create a nonconforming
situation.
The site has a dense concentration of mature trees on the north and northwest corner of the site.
The plans indicate that the majority of those trees will be saved. There are trees scattered
throughout the site. The majority of these trees are nursery stock trees, hence, staff did not
require the applicant to show these trees on the plans. Only natural growth was required to be
shown and saved. A preservation easement over the area where tree concentrations exist will
be required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently
preserving the trees.
In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision will require revisions. We are
recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report.
BACKGROUND
This site has been used as a nursery for over 30 years. There is a variety and large number of
trees.
On December 8, 1986: The applicant filed an application to subdivide 105 acres into 37
single family lots. This application was filed under the 1 unit per
2.5 acre density rule which was still in effect.
On July 6, 1987: The City Council approved the preliminary plat for Great Plains
Golf Estates.
r
r
t I
' Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 3
On March 28, 1988: The City Council approved a one year extension for final plat
' approval for Great Plains Golf Estates subdivision. The deadline
was extended to July 10, 1989.
On June 12, 1989: The City Council gave preliminary plat approval for the Great
Plains Golf Estates. The preliminary plat was given a five year
time frame to be final platted. The expiration day was on June 12,
1994.
On July 10, 1989: The City Council gave final plat approval for Great Plains Golf
Estates. The final plat approval was for 3 lots located on the east
side of Highway 101 and north of Creekwood Drive. The
remaining portion of Great Plains Golf Estates was shown as
outlots. These outlots were required to be platted within 5 years
from July 10, 1989.
' On March 17, 1994: City staff met with the applicant to provide final guide lines. Over
the past year and a half, the applicant submitted a number of plats.
Staff continuously sent comments explaining changes that needed
' to be made to the submittal. The submittal before last showed 36
lots clustered on the west side of Highway 101, with an area of
approximately one acre per lot. The remainder of the site was
platted as an outlot. The overall density of the site was one unit
per 2.5 acres. Staff had concerns over the septic systems. Staff
agreed to set up an escrow fund using $1,000 received from the
applicant to hire Resource Engineering. The firm was authorized
by the City on March 29, 1994 to begin a preliminary investigation
of the individual sewage treatment system (ISTS) sites using the
escrow fund. The results of the investigation indicated that the
septic sites were unsuitable.
On April 20, 1994: Staff requested that revised plans be resubmitted no later than July
5, 1994 to the Planning Department. This date allowed Resource
Engineering enough time to complete their soil tests and analysis,
and for the applicant's engineering firm to respond to the requested
revisions.
' When this subdivision was originally platted, lots in the rural area had a 2.5 acre lot size
requirement. With the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement in 1987, the Metropolitan Council
' required all lots outside of the MUSA to be developed at a 1 unit per 10 acre density. Since that
time, the Met Council has allowed the city to decide what size the lot should be (we have
adopted the 15,000 square foot requirement) as long as the 1 unit per 10 acres is observed.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 4
The applicant was given direction from city staf to pursue these smaller lots while maintaining
the 1 unit per 10 acre requirement. The applicant tried several different plans including a
collective septic system. Plans evolved until finally the current plan was submitted for city
review.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 102.73 acre site into 36 single family lots. The
density of the proposed subdivision is 0.35 units per acre gross, and 0.46 units per acre net after
removing the roads. The plat proposes leaving the nursery on an 11.45 acre lot. There are no
wetlands found on the site. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area,
with an average lot size of 94,320 square feet.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance with the
exception of the two outlots. These outlots contain a business and a single family home. The
zoning ordinance does not allow any structures to be located on an outlot. Staff is recommending
the plans be revised to show a change from outlot to lot.
GRADING & DRAINAGE
The applicant has submitted a detailed site grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the
overall development. However, according to city ordinance, the grading plan should show
existing and proposed 2 -foot contours for street construction, drainage swales, berms and house
pads in order to determine the full impact of the development. The applicant has supplied a
detailed development plan indicating the house floor elevations; however, it does not propose site
grading around the homes. One example is on Lot 4, Block 5, where the home pad is situated
within an existing drainage swale. No provision are made to reroute the drainageway. This type
of adjustment must be taken into consideration with the final grading plan.
It appears that the site will be broken up into six drainage areas. Storm runoff from the site is
proposed to meet predeveloped runoff rates and most ponding areas are designed to the National
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. There are a few areas that will still need to provide
temporary pretreatment areas such as the area north of Maple Court. Staff believes we can work
this out with the applicant's engineer. In the development on the west side of Trunk Highway
101, approximately one -half of the site drains west to the existing pond in the west - central
portion the site (behind the nursery building). The existing pond appears to receive storm runoff
from the west (golf course) in addition to runoff from the site. The storm drainage calculations
also need to incorporate the existing drainage from outside the development such as the golf
course. The City's Surface Water Management Plan proposed the central and southern portions
of the development to drain to a future stormwater /sediment pond BC -P7.1 (Attachment No. 1)
located east of the existing nursery building adjacent to Trunk Highway 101. This pond has a
tributary drainage area of approximately 40 acres. The storage volume is estimated at 2.1 acre
1
1
I Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
' Page 5
feet with a normal water elevation of 919.0 and a high water level of 924.5. The existing pond
' behind the nursery may be combined with Pond B. At minimum, the outlet from the existing
pond should be rerouted and directed through Pond B to reduce the number of discharge points
to the east underneath Trunk Highway 101.
Approximately one - quarter of the westerly site drains north with street drainage carried to the
northeast corner of the site. According to Carver County Highway Department, there is a culvert
underneath County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail) that has previously experienced some capacity
problems. Location of the culvert should be shown on the grading plan. The SWMP shows the
northern portion of the site drains to an existing wetland (BC- P5.13) located north of County
Road 14. The basin is an existing ag/urban wetland and therefore runoff needs to be pretreated
prior to discharging into the wetland. Since the City has not obtained or acquired the necessary
ponding easements over the wetland, this development may be considered premature in
' conjunction with the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Plan. The applicant will be required then
to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate and water quality treatment to NURP standards with
temporary on -site ponding. The applicant still will be required to pay a cash contribution to the
City Surface Water Management Fund for construction of future downstream water quality and
quantity facilities.
' The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. Dedication will be
equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving
' the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a
schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market
values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of
the pond. If the applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be
waived.
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on average city -wide
rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP
culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Based on
the land use, this development will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. Staff is working
with the applicant on storm drainage plans at which time fees will be reduced in accordance with
the SWMP requirements. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity
' fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as
outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc.
Approximately one - quarter of the site drains to the southwest corner of the development. Storm
runoff to the southwest corner on the site is also proposed to be ponded (Pond "A ") and the
runoff controlled at predeveloped rates. The stormwater discharge from pond flows along the
' north side of Creekwood Drive west of this development to an existing drainage culvert
underneath Creekwood Drive. The drainage then is conveyed over land through a steep ravine
to Bluff Creek. In the past, this area has been prone to erosion and has been used as a dumping
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 6
and filling ground for different parties. The development of this property will only increase the
volume of runoff draining through the ravine. The applicant currently owns property which was
platted previously as Outlot D, Great Plains Golf Estates. Staff recommends that the developer
convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for future construction of storm
drainage infrastructures to control erosion and convey storm runoff to Bluff Creek.
Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the plat has
been revised to accommodate staff changes in the plat's street and lot configuration. The
developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with revised detailed storm sewer
drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm drainage system on the east side of Trunk
Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat. The revisions are further explored in the
appropriate sections under "Streets /Access."
Trunk Highway 101 is a temporary state highway with no plans for upgrading. As a result of
the initial platting of Great Plains Golf Estates, additional right -of -way was dedicated for the
future realignment of Trunk Highway 101. However, actual construction of Trunk Highway 101
is not scheduled and therefore interim safety improvements are recommended along existing
Trunk Highway 101 in the following areas:
1. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery
entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant is also proposing
to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff recommends that the
existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to improve sight lines and
berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height.
2. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive shall
be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet MnDOT
standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
3. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose sight
distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented by the applicant's
engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the posted speeds.
East of Trunk Highway 101 the grading plan proposes utilizing an existing drainage basin located
on Lot 3, Block 6 (Pond D). This basin qualifies as a wetland according to the Army Corps of
Engineers and will need a permit to excavate. This basin is also proposed as a stormwater
sediment trap in the SWMP with a normal water elevation of 892.5 and high water elevation of
897.1. The applicant's storm calculation is somewhat lower. This is anticipated due to the fact
that the amount of contributing area is less than proposed in the SWMP. The existing basin has
a makeshift outlet control structure to maintain water levels in the pond. Staff is familiar with
this drainage basin from past dealings with the applicant in securing a grading permit to fill in
a portion of the downstream ravine. It appears the applicant has been filling this ravine without
1
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
' Page 7
an appropriate permit and with unacceptable materials such as landscaping debris and other
materials that will settle over time and create erosion and shear failures on the bluff. Staff
recommends that the applicant be required to re- excavate all unacceptable materials and backfill
with engineered fill as well as replace the existing storm drainage pipe (24 -inch CMP) to
maintain the structural integrity of the storm drainage lines since the City will no doubt be taking
over the maintenance responsibilities of the storm sewer system after the project is completed.
A couple of significant trees exist around this same ponding basin. There are also a couple of
' dead trees. The grading proposes expanding this ponding basin which would result in the
removal of all trees immediately adjacent to the existing pond. The applicant's engineer should
redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D ") to accommodate the existing significant trees that are
alive.
UTILITIES
' The previous preliminary plat submitted clustered the lots on the west side of Trunk Highway
101 with the intent of leaving the remaining site undeveloped. Staff at that time indicated that
' the applicant should be required to meet urban standards since the lot sizes and densities
accounted for these standards being warranted. This means that the City would require that dry
sanitary sewer and water lines be installed for future hookup and the streets constructed to urban
standards. Staff indicated at that time if the lot sizes were increased to one acre in size
(average), staff would reconsider the requirement for an urban street section and dry utility lines.
As proposed, the lots are well over the one -acre size average and therefore staff will not require
that urban street sections or dry utility lines be installed. Staff recommends that the streets be
constructed to meet the City's typical rural street standards (see Attachment No. 2).
' Currently the site is outside the MUSA boundary and there is no sanitary sewer or water service
to the site; therefore, the individual lots will be dependent upon on -site septic and well systems.
' The City's building department will be performing a review of the plans and preparing the
appropriate memo regarding well and septic availability.
STREET /ACCESS
Streets within the development are anticipated to meet the City's rural street standards. However,
' the typical street section as proposed does not currently meet the City's rural roadway section.
The applicant's engineer should revise the standard detail to meet the City's standard rural street
section (see Attachment No. 3). The applicant is providing the necessary 60 -foot wide right-of-
way and 60 -foot radiuses in the turnarounds. Street grades range from 0.50% to 4.00% which
meets City standards.
On the west side of Trunk Highway 101, the applicant has significantly redesigned the street
layout from the previous preliminary plat submittal. The applicant is proposing two streets,
Golfview Circle and Halla Nursery Vista. Golfview Circle is proposed to access from
County Road 14 and Trunk Highway 101 are functionally classified as minor arterial (Class 2)
roadways in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. During the previous platting of
Great Plains Golfview Estates, the City has acquired the necessary right -of -way for Trunk
Highway 101. It is unclear from the previous plat if adequate right -of -way was dedicated for
County Road 14. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County
that appropriate right -of -way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one -half of the
minimum 100 -foot wide corridor for County Road 14. In addition, the County requests
consideration for an additional trail easement if a trailway is to be constructed along the County
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 8
Creekwood Drive which is shown as Town Road on the plans. Golfview Circle will be a
deadend cul -de -sac approximately 1,000 feet long with no secondary access. Halla Nursery Vista
'
accesses from Trunk Highway 101 and branches off into two separate cul -de -sacs ( Golfview
Court and Vista Court North). Neither one of the street alignments proposed provide for future
extension through the nursery site and potential looping of the two street systems. Although the
traffic volumes may be low due to the land use, staff policy is to look for a secondary access
whenever feasible. At some point, the nursery may no longer be located on Outlot A which
opens the door for additional residential development. Since no further access will be allowed
off of Trunk Highway 101, provisions for looping the two street systems through Outlot A from
Golfview Circle or Golfview Court should be explored by the applicant.
East of Trunk Highway 101 Halla Nurser Vista is proposed to loo back out to County Road
g Y � Y P P P tY
14. Staff is aware of an existing private road which lies adjacent to the southerly boundary of
this development. The existing road is constructed within a 30 -foot wide easement which serves
'
the existing home on Outlot C, Great Plains Golf Estates (David Halla) and two other homes.
In addition, two other home sites are potentially available in the Bursch Development which lies
immediately west of Outlot C. Staff believes that the Halla Nursery Vista road should be
'
realigned to follow this private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road.
Upon review of the file staff has found previous concept or preliminary plats showing this
roadway alignment which we believe is more feasible from an engineering and transportation
standpoint. We recommend that the applicant go back and revisit the situation and redesign the
plat incorporating the existing roadway.
When the subdivision immediately to the east of this development (Deerbrook Addition) was
developed, a stub street was to be provided to access this site (Great Plains Estates development).
'
Upon review of the final plat of Deerbrook, there is only a 60 -foot wide drainage and utility
easement that was dedicated to the City for the extension of a roadway. Unfortunately, this
easement does not adequately allow the City to construct a roadway to connect the two
subdivisions. In addition, a very large earth berm has been constructed over the City's 60 -foot
'
wide drainage and utility easement. Therefore, at this time it appears unfeasible to consider
connecting Deerbrook with this proposed subdivision. This is unfortunate because it would have
allowed another access to an extremely long dead -end cul -de -sac on Deerbrook Drive.
County Road 14 and Trunk Highway 101 are functionally classified as minor arterial (Class 2)
roadways in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. During the previous platting of
Great Plains Golfview Estates, the City has acquired the necessary right -of -way for Trunk
Highway 101. It is unclear from the previous plat if adequate right -of -way was dedicated for
County Road 14. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County
that appropriate right -of -way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one -half of the
minimum 100 -foot wide corridor for County Road 14. In addition, the County requests
consideration for an additional trail easement if a trailway is to be constructed along the County
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 9
highway. Standard trail easement is 20 feet wide. Access to the individual lots should be limited
to the interior streets and not from County Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
The applicant is proposing a north/south street named Birch Drive which intersects County Road
14. Upon review of the City's half - section map it appears that Birch Drive is offset
approximately 50 feet from the existing Foxford Road which lies north of County Road 14.
From a continuity standpoint, staff believes that these two streets should be aligned across from
one another. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be
continuous with Foxford Road at the intersection of County Road 14. Access permits will be
required from both MnDOT and Carver County Highway Departments.
' EROSION CONTROL
A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer
prior to final platting. Staff recommends the applicant use the City's Best Management Practice
' Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be
seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to prevent erosion and sedimentation.
If at all possible, construction of the site in stages is preferred to help reduce erosion problems.
' MISCELLANEOUS
Since development will involve public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter into
a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation
of the public improvements and final plat conditions of approval. The appropriate drainage and
' utility easements shall be shown on the final plat overall drainageways and ponding areas.
The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way.
The preliminary plat proposes Outlot A which currently has an existing structure. Outlot A is
currently used as the Nursery business and should be platted into a lot and block. The final plat
should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block
2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains Golfview Estates.
' PARK DEDICATION
The Park and Recreation Commission will be meeting on August 9, 1994 to discuss the potential
of a future open space referendum. There is a desire to locate a park on this site but this is
premised on the city's ability to acquire the property. Right -of -way on Hwy. 101 and Pioneer
Trail for future trail purposes will also be discussed by the Park Commission.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 10
EASEMENTS
Individual Sewage Treatment Sites
The current proposal is changed from that of July 1987. These proposed changes from the 1987
plat, for the purposes of on -site sewage treatment sites, necessitate complete, new evaluations of
the currently proposed sites. Sites must be evaluated for depth to mottling, soils, orientation, area
and location relative to buildings, property lines, wells, etc. Additionally, ISTS evaluations must
comply with other code requirements designed to assure the integrity and suitability of the sites
and future ISTS. Individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) are regulated by Minnesota Rules,
Chapter 7080, Individual Sewage Treatment Standards as amended by the City in Chanhassen
City Code, Article IV.
The following are concerns and /or comments concerning the proposed ISTS sites.
Depth to mottling. Mottles, if present, are indicated on required boring logs. Mottles
are splotches of red, yellow, or gray colors in the soil indicating zones of seasonal soil
saturation. The bottom of an ISTS must be located three feet above this zone in order
to achieve required treatment. The code requires that at least one foot of suitable
(unmottled) soil be present at an ISTS site. Mottles are difficult to detect in topsoil
without the use of a color chart, therefore all sites indicated as having mottles at one foot
and with a foot or more of topsoil are subject to close scrutiny prior to being accepted
as viable ISTS sites. No boring logs have been received for the currently proposed
sites!
Soils. In addition to requirements for separation from mottles, on -site soils must be
evaluated for texture, structure and permeability. These evaluations determine the level
of ability of the soil to accept and treat waste. Acceptance of a site for an ISTS is based,
in part, on the measurement and evaluation of these soil characteristics, and is predicated
on the assumption that the soils on a site are undisturbed. Activities such as tree removal
and field roads create disturbed areas which may alter the treatment ability of the soil.
The 1986 evaluation report from Resource Engineering indicates that the report is based
"...solely on data submitted to the City of Chanhassen." There were no field observations
conducted by Resource Engineering, and it is doubtful that they were aware of the use
of the property. 7080 requires that mounds be constructed on original soils. Page nine
of the enclosed May 1994 report from Resource Engineering, although reporting on a
different lot configuration, is for the same general area and casts doubt on the
acceptability of many of the currently proposed sites. It cannot be determined from
existing documentation that the proposed sites contain all original soil.
Orientation. It appears that proposed sites are correctly oriented, but field evaluation by
the City consultant, Resource Engineering is required to confirm this.
1
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 11
Area (lot & site). It appears that adequate area has been provided for ISTS sites, but field
' evaluation by the City consultant is required to confirm this.
Other requirements. ISTS site evaluation is a complicated process involving specialized
knowledge. Site Evaluators are required to be licensed by Carver County. The site
evaluator is not licensed in Carver County, nor identified as being certified by the
State.
Because proposed property lines are subject to change as the plat proceeds through the
approval process, borings submitted in relation to property lines cannot be accepted.
' Borings and perc tests must be identified with unique numbers not related to lots or
blocks. Staff visited the site on 7/26/94 and was unable to determine property lines, ISTS
sites or boring locations. Accuracy of this information is vital to the correct evaluation
of the project. Proposed property lines, ISTS sites, perc tests and borings should be
identified in the field by labelled stakes.
Due to the commercial tree removal activity that has occurred at the site, staff is unable to
approve sites without additional consultation with ISTS and soil experts. Resource Engineering
is the City consultant for ISTS and must be consulted prior to ISTS site approvals. Their
evaluation consists of a preliminary evaluation based on information provided by the developer
and a site evaluation. The preliminary evaluation cannot take place until:
n
I
�
i
I'
Two boring and perc test (if peres are required) locations for each site, each with a unique
identification, are shown on the grading and drainage plan.
Boring logs and perc test logs identified as the peres and borings done at the locations
shown on the grading and drainage plan are submitted.
Confirmation that all ISTS work was done by individuals licensed to do such work.
Preliminary evaluation can be in conjunction with, or followed by, a site evaluation which must
also be conducted by Resource Engineering.
Attempts to evaluate the proposed plat thoroughly have been made, but the applicant's failure
to work with the City ISTS evaluator makes a thorough evaluation impossible at this time.
Results of these site evaluations can affect all other aspects of this proposed plat.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 12
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
BLOCK 3
Lot 1
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot 2
Area
Width
Depth
Ordinance
15,000
90'
125'
BLOCK 1
88,924
104.8'
243'
Lot 1
70,076
236.1'
290'
Lot 2
64,636
340.7'
330'
Lot 3
68,474
217'
300'
Lot 4
69,143
64.8' on curve
275'
90' front setback
Lot 5
56,055
167'
285'
BLOCK 2
Lot 1
85,639
229.8'
320'
Lot 2
68,065
189.9'
254.25'
Lot 3
79,742
212.6'
244.35'
BLOCK 3
Lot 1
72,946
450'
177'
Lot 2
66,758
105.7
257'
Lot 3
65,093
192.9'
257'
Lot 4
88,924
104.8'
243'
Lot 5
83,322
110.6'
261.9'
Lot 6
74,591
273.4'
300'
Lot 7
108,909
155'
245'
Home
Setback
30' front/rear
10' sides
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 13
Lot 8
184,264
206.2'
310'
Lot 9
69,247
155'
245'
BLOCK 4
Lot 1
132,164
102.4'
262.9'
Lot 2
77,126
277'
260'
Lot 3
79,201
302.6'
260'
Lot 4
70,594
279'
260'
Lot 5
93,922
237'
260'
BLOCK 5
Lot 1
88,035
274.7'
260'
Lot 2
68,308
264.1'
260'
Lot 3
73,143
281.7'
260.0'
Lot 4
93,770
340'
320'
Lot 5
97,299
314.1'
325.6'
Lot 6
103,713
301.6'
325.6'
Lot 7
126,568
86.1
300'
Lot 8
103,142
193.3'
294.4'
Lot 9
95,359
294.3'
297'
Lot 10
82,933
311.7'
296'
BLOCK 6
Lot 1
138,242
449.4'
320'
Lot 2
102,818
220'
330'
Lot 3
188,769
300'
405'
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 14
TREE PRESERVATION
The grading plan shows the vegetated areas and the amount of tree removal. The site contains
significant concentrations of mature trees along the north and northwest areas of the site that
should be preserved as best possible. The forested areas contain large, mature hardwoods.
The forested areas are on the steeper elevations of the site. Some of the vegetation is in
locations where extensive grading is required to develop the site. The grading of the site for
septic system preparation is resulting in the loss of a number of trees.
Custom grading on Lots 4, 5, 7, and 8 is required to allow the site to be prepared for the
individual house rather than mass grading the site at the beginning of the project. A tree
preservation plan will be required.
All of the vegetated areas that are being saved shall be preserved by a conservation easement.
Staff is also requesting a landscaping plan. This plan should show the type and size of trees
proposed to be planted as well as the location of berms along Highway 101. The applicant
should also show the type and size of trees being removed (nursery stock trees are not
included). A reforestation plan will attempt to replace all those trees being lost due to grading
and placement of septic sites. The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Staff is
recommending that the applicant work with staff to develop a reforestation plan to replace the
tree removal.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On August 3, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the preliminary plat
application for this subdivision. Some additional issues were raised. These issues included:
* The Planning Commission questioned the use of the nursery parcel as part of the
calculation of the overall density for the proposed plat. This area has always been part
of the overall plat. Consequently, the 11.45 acres are being calculated as part of the
overall plat.
* At the Planning Commission meeting, staff and the Planning Commission were
informed by the applicant that the 10.23 acre parcel, located to the southeast of the
plat, shown as FUTURE DEVELOPMENT is not part of the plat. Staff had calculated
this parcel as part of the overall density. Staff met with the applicant on August 17,
1994 and informed him that the total number of lots may not exceed 37 lots. The 37
lots will include the FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, the nursery site, and Mark Halla's
home site located on the southwest corner of the plat. This will result in reducing the
total number of lots proposed for single family development to 34 lots. It will also
result in a gross density of one unit per 2.7 acres.
F - 1
L
1
Ll
I Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 15
* Some neighbors complained about the noise level from the nursery, generated from the
' speaker system and peacocks.
* The Commission recommended the lots maintain a minimum 2.5 acre lot size.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended modifications to the staff recommendation. These
changes are shown in either bold or overstrike:
"The City Council approves of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #86 -31 for Great Plains
Golf Estates as shown on the plans dated June 6, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
' 1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless
the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of
' 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
2. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan
on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their
size. 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 shall provide a plan
which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide
the legal description.
' 3. Lot 4, 5, 7, and 8 Block 3, shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation
plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right
to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant
vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation
easement prior to grading.
' 4. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with
Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department approved provisions for the turning
around of fire apparatus. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be
' designed and shown on site plan.
5. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
' loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all- weather
driving capabilities. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings.
This applies to homes which are in excess of 150 feet of State Hwy 101.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates ,
August 3, 1994
Page 16
6. Street names:
a. Maple Court is not acceptable. The City already has 5 streets with "Maple" in
the name.
b. The street between Hwy. 101 and County Road 14 is named both Birch Drive
and Halla Nursery Vista. The street must have only one name. Eliminate Halla
Vista Drive.
C. Rename "Golf View Circle." Submit alternative name. ,
7. Building Department conditions:
'
a. Use Carver County licensed septic site evaluator.
'
b. Submit boring logs of borings done on each proposed ISTS site with a unique
identification for each to Inspections Division.
'
C. Stake and identify proposed property lines, proposed ISTS sites and perc and
boring locations.
'
d. Provide a preliminary evaluation report on the ISTS sites from Resource
Engineering.
Revise the te dwelling type designa
e. pr-ehmiaar-y gr-ading plan shew standaM
This condition has been met).
'
8. The applicant will need to provide revised detailed storm calculations for 10 and 100 -
year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality and quantity
'
ponds in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City
Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall retain on site the predeveloped
runoff rate as well as provided interim water quality and quantity ponds. The applicant
,
shall provide detailed pre - developed and post - developed storm water calculations for
existing and proposed storm water basins. In addition, water quality pond design
calculations shall be based on Walker's pondnet model.
9. The streets shall be constructed to the City's rural street section. Detailed construction
plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City ,
Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans shall be
designed in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail
plates. '
I Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 17
10. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
' necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
with final plat conditions of approval.
' 11. The applicant shall meet wetland fill and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in the
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to
or concurrent with wetland fill activity or excavation in future phases of the project.
12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps
' of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their
conditions of approval.
' 13. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for
all storm water drainageways and ponding areas lying outside the street right -of -ways.
The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be
' given for access for maintenance of the storm water ponding areas. Outlot A shall be
platted as a lot and block.
I
s
14. The applicant's engineer shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and formal approval.
15. The grading plan shall be revised to relocate all berming outside street or trunk
highway right -of -ways. The berm shall be limited to 4 feet high with 3:1 slopes along
Trunk Highway 101 right -of -ways. In addition, the grading plan shall show all
proposed grading as a result of drainage improvements, street and house construction.
The applicant's engineer shall work with staff in developing a revised storm drainage
plan to accommodate plat revisions.
16. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands
shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100 -year high water level. All storm water
ponds shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and
no more than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes.
17. The outlet from the existing pond behind the nursery shall be re- routed and directed
through Pond "B."
18. Existing wells and septic systems on the site which are not to be utilized shall be
properly abandoned in accordance with City or State codes.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 18
19. The applicant shall be responsible for the appropriate storm water quality and quantity
fees based in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The
requirement for cash fees in lieu of land or permanent pond construction shall be based
upon the schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
20. 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.
21. The developer shall convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for
future construction of storm drainage infrastructures over Outlot D, Great Plains Golf
Estates.
22. Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the
plat has been revised to accommodate staff' changes in the plat's street and lot
configuration. The developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with
revised detailed storm sewer drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm
drainage system on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat.
23. The applicant shall modify the plans and incorporate the following safety
improvements:
a. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the
nursery entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant
is also proposing to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101.
Staff recommends that the existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled
back to improve sight lines and berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in
height.
b. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood
Drive shall be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does
not meet MnDOT standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
C. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may
impose sight distance problems as well. This should be investigated and
documented by the applicant's engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's
standards for the posted speeds.
1
U
it
24. The applicant shall be required to re- excavate all unacceptable materials in the ravine
on Lot 3, Block 6 and backfill with engineered fill as well as replace the existing storm
drainage pipe (24 -inch CMP) with concrete pipe.
I I_
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 19
25. The applicant's engineer should redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D ") to
' accommodate the existing significant trees that are alive yet.
26. The applicant shall provide for the future looping of the two street systems through
' Outlot A from Golfview Circle or Golfview Court. Outlot A shall have no additional
access granted for TH 101.
I 27. Halla Nursery Vista road east of Trunk Highway 101 should be realigned to follow the
private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road.
'
28.
The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County that
appropriate right -of -way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one -half of
the minimum 100 -foot wide corridor for County Road 14.
29.
Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from County
'
Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
30.
The applicant shall revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be continuous with Foxford
PP P
'
Road at the intersection of County Road 14.
31.
The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way.
r 32.
Outlot A is currently used as the nursery business and should be platted into a lot and
block. The final plat should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show
Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains
'
Golfview Estates.
33. That staff and applicant work together to make sure that the future road in the
southeast corner of the plat not infringe on the bluff. That it adheres the new
bluff ordinance.
34. The 1 unit per 2.5 acre is based on the actual land to be platted. Specifically does
not include the future development area which is not owned by Don Halla.
' 35. Covenants be provided for the new property owners informing of the days and
hours of operation of the retail commercial site and if any changes are made to
' those hours and days, that the property owners be informed of such changes.
36. The total number of lots shall not exceed 37 lots. This number includes the parcel
owned by Mark Halla, the parcel owned by David Halla, the nursery site, and all
lots proposed for single family development."
CI
,
Halla's
Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page
20
ATTACHMENTS
'
1.
Reduced preliminary plat approved July 6, 1987.
2.
Reduced final plat approved July 10, 1989.
3.
Letter from Paul and Deborah Graffunder dated August 9, 1994.
'
4.
Letter from G. R. Mundale dated July 21, 1994.
5.
Letter from Wendell Schott dated August 1, 1994.
6.
Letter from Jim and Jan Sabinski dated August 3, 1994.
'
7.
Letter from Resource Engineering dated July 27, 1994.
8.
Memo from MNDOT dated March 16, 1994.
9.
Memo from Carver County Engineering Department dated August 2, 1994.
'
10.
Memo from Dave Hempel dated July 28, 1994.
11.
Memo from Steve Kirchman dated July 27, 1994.
12.
Memo from Mark Littfin dated July 22, 1994.
'
13.
Planning Commission minutes dated August 3, 1994.
14.
Preliminary plat dated June 6, 1994.
CI
i
g _ •rte, I _
.. J
7 �, �. -- �,..,.. ..orb � � �` j �..�{ - ' I -.1 _ 3 •
12 11 10
5G
1G 15 ,. 16 ,_ .... ,. ... .
PROPOSED. GREAT PLAINS
GOLF ESTATES
2:S7
1
1
i
1
1
'GREAT R ,"AINS GOLF E.STATES
THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, HAS
AN ASSUMED BEARING OF S.89'30'39"W.
DENOTES 1/2-INCH X 14-INCH SET IRON PIPE MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 17253
SCALE IV FEET:
260 460 6560 880 1060
VA
u�
the
-N.,fk I;— Ilk- S.Wyf "rscc.zs ------
- Cenfe. Gne of °i �i I��; •-5.89'30'35 I:.�' '
N.88•43'50"E C ty !load N., 14
1 11-01 �•
H I GHWA Y 14
COUNTY :,t 10".45
_'3 43 50
ti
:z
53 1:
•5` 6 . 6.
ti
C)
o f), 1'.e the
so 10 S. w 34 c
�ouTLOT D
SEE [)E74,1L
'
- 6
I
Pi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
� Fib "`PP�aJEd ��,1y io;l���i
.63 oc
6 5 _ 9 .50 N E. 30 fl. R1 Easement
3
315.66
K
is
�o
DRIVE,
'i! r�T,
CREEKWOOD
o f), 1'.e the
so 10 S. w 34 c
�ouTLOT D
SEE [)E74,1L
'
- 6
I
Pi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
� Fib "`PP�aJEd ��,1y io;l���i
.63 oc
ISCA
3
315.66
K
L 0
C
DRIVE,
'i! r�T,
CREEKWOOD
o f), 1'.e the
so 10 S. w 34 c
�ouTLOT D
SEE [)E74,1L
'
- 6
I
Pi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
� Fib "`PP�aJEd ��,1y io;l���i
DRIVE,
o f), 1'.e the
so 10 S. w 34 c
�ouTLOT D
SEE [)E74,1L
'
- 6
I
Pi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
� Fib "`PP�aJEd ��,1y io;l���i
1
1 �
1_
1
1
� s
1
1
1 -
1�
1
!49
1
PI
AIL
iW BAND /MERE
,,,,,/////////, 1111 „ /1II ///
/I / / /1 / 1111,// 1 /// ///,,,///,/,/
,11 1 ,//,,, /1„. 1,1 .1 /11 .1 //„/// / 1111.4 11
_..., I 1/ //11/,// /////1111,/ .1 d
111„1/ .1..1.1.1, F I /•
I1 1/0
.1/, I .1, / / /( /:
,1 11,//////// // .1 //.
,11,11.1 /,11/1111, „1,11,/,/,, / „ I,
,11,/,//11,/11, / /I/
SUBJECT PROPE TY „11 „11/
,,,,,,,, , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
, , 1,,,,,,,,,,11,,,111,,,,,,,,,
„ ,,, ,
. ,11 1111,/
,11,/„
„/ //„ 1111,,
,,/, ,
y .111 „11,,,11,
.11,11.,1111/
„11,,,11,1
111,,, .1, /,/
BLUFF ” " " ""
lot- „111111,
CREEK % % % % % %
PARK ”' 6S - --�---
f
P oo r
LOCATION MAP
I 41 e
vg� �
Q)
/O�(U
RECEIVED
1994 ,
CITY OF CHAN( HASS�w '
At
//1
J� ct" Z- le�
�. , � �� �✓�- ��d -e�y� v,�r � �-�- �-c/� Chu --�.t ��
1
I
G v Cc� e;6e CSC �1� Uvl
Q� -eel 1 �c,��'
Mc-e a
�4j (
cl-
3
dL� �- -+�/�� •-" Cam' �" i \ vtx..T � V�- [./C. /'l�C.� -t-t�' �/(�l �, /��"G�� �� -CLtj
t /J
i U ��
t
r�-�� G�'� c�.�'•- �-���4 2c,�.� -�� r� r �..�� a�,2 7 �-L'`� �G'>^ mac_
���c —� tic. �l ✓`�-P ���.��C�. , ? � � � CY�� e?"L �� --t'/� ✓��`c
3 �
f.
1
J
L�
ell-
ez �z
, ttz
<<.� �'t- � - -�--� ��J ✓ -� �{ �Lq" -�� YQ��t� -� Lam( ��cc..�� C9 / L�
Ls
u
C'u
J
#::4 U G - 1 -94 r-1UF -1 1 6 : 36
I Auk>>st 1 , 1994
F' . 0 1
J
Tbis density would dramatically differ from the less dense
hoaxing in the immediate area. Our family moved to this area to
avoid the congestion which takes place in areas developed as
smaller lots. The present ordinance requires 10 acres per single
family lot when sewer and water are not available. This bind of
project is counter to the trend to develop larger lots for areas
w[thoi.it sewer service.
we also own a lot in Lake Riley Woods Subdivision which is over 4
a'_res, sloes this mean the City Council could potentially approve
development with more than a single homesite?
In summary our family would be very much against this proposed
project. for the reasons stated above.
Sincerely,
Wendell A. Schott
9350 Foxford Rd.
Chanhassen, MN
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
'
Chanhassen, MN 55318
Fpgarding: Don Halla's Great
Plains Golf Estates
Dear Sir /Madam:
Your recent Notice of Public
Hearing regarding the above projer.t:.
'
Proajpt.s me t.o communicate my
concerns. I have been told that
t,hi.s acreage was approved for
development Tin. the past at a
density of 2.5 acres per lot.
The proposed preliminary plat
wo:.ild provide for more lots at only 1.25 acres per lot on
-1% erage .
J
Tbis density would dramatically differ from the less dense
hoaxing in the immediate area. Our family moved to this area to
avoid the congestion which takes place in areas developed as
smaller lots. The present ordinance requires 10 acres per single
family lot when sewer and water are not available. This bind of
project is counter to the trend to develop larger lots for areas
w[thoi.it sewer service.
we also own a lot in Lake Riley Woods Subdivision which is over 4
a'_res, sloes this mean the City Council could potentially approve
development with more than a single homesite?
In summary our family would be very much against this proposed
project. for the reasons stated above.
Sincerely,
Wendell A. Schott
9350 Foxford Rd.
Chanhassen, MN
ISSUES REGARDING THE PROPOSED EALLA ,:DDITION
} he street name
.. Leave t , Creekwood
2. Don't issue building- permits until the roads and street are done
3. No construction traffic on Creekwood
4. No out traffic on Creekwood '
5. The paving of Creekwood was paid primarily by home owners. Halla paid ,
only for three lots.
6..
Creekwood is only 20' wide. it's
too narrow for hook and ladder fire trucks.
'
7.
Water run off from Creekwood into
the ravine. Halla's pond run off goes
under Creekwood into ravine.
8.
The traffic is backed up on County
road 14 at least a mile between
5 and 6 PM.
9.
Halla intercom system is on at 7
am and is on until. 10 pm or later.
'
10.
They sometimes run a bobcat from
7 am to 10 pm or later.
11.
noisy peacocks ( Halla's) screech
all day long.
12.
Lack of a fire station /equipment on south side for the size houses that
i
are being proposed.
13. No parks or place for neighborhood children to walk or ride bikes on
narrow Creekwood street.
14. Commercial property mixed with a residential neighborhood.
15. Concerned about the chemicals that have been used by . Wla running off into
neighborhood wells
16. Noxious weeds growing among the "wild flowers" on both sides of Creekwood
and ravine area.
17. Would like to see Creekwood closed from 101 and make a new access on south
side of Balla's new sheds. 4
18. Why weren't the homeowners notified of the change in plans for only three
houses previously planned for coming onto creekwood.
19. Let us homeowners in on the Park issue mentioned in the staff report.
20. Any update on plans by the Golf course to develop.
-4
RESOURCE ENGINEERING
Machmeier. P.E.
X9665 Neal Avenue
Limd.trum, MN 55045
(612) 257 - 2019
Jame L. Andentm. C.P.S.S.
3541 Ensk- Avenue. North
New Hope. MN 55427
(612) 593 -5338
July 27, 1994
Steve Kirchman, Building Official
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Planning Case 86 -31
Dear Steve:
We are responding to your questions regarding the
information submitted on individual sewage treatment systems
for the proposed Great Plains Golf Estates subdivision. The
information which we received from you is incomplete
relative to what is required for a review of subdivision
lots to determine if the proposed sites are suitable for the
soil treatment units of an onsite sewage treatment system.
Therefore, we cannot proceed at this time with any
further evaluation of this proposed subdivision. The soil
treatment unit sites which have been marked on the submitted
plat map of the proposed subdivision appear to be of
adequate size. We would note that all field procedures for
the evaluation of soil treatment unit sites and submitted
data must follow the subdivision ordinance of the City of
Chanhassen.
The sites proposed for the soil treatment units must be
clearly staked in the field with soil boring locations and
lot lines clearly identified for us to proceed with any
further evaluation of the proposed subdivision.
When additional data and information are received from
you, we will proceed with an evaluation of the proposed
subdivision. The time schedule of our evaluation will be
subject to prior commitments which we may have made at the
time additional information is received.
Sincerely,
gr - , e - MaCLII� RECEIvED
Roger E. Machmeier, P.E. JUL. 2 8 1994
I
1
J
f '
J ^ �
ry
y
SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT
' NNES0T9
' y
' OF TR
1
March 16, 1994
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Sharmin Al -Jaff
Planning Department
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Cuatdiassen IMN 553 17
Dear Sharmin Al -Jaff:
^'7 v -�
SUBJECT: Site Plan Review
Don Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
West of TH 101, South of CSAH 14
' Chanhassen, Carver County
CS 1009
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) has reviewed the Don Halla's Great Plains
Golf Estates site plan. We have the following comments.
' • No additional access may be allowed to TH 101 in this area. Access for this property should
be provided elsewhere.
' • Stormwater run -off to TH 101 right of way must not increase. Current drainage patterns and
rates of run -off should be perpetuated. Approval from Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek
Watershed District may be necessary. Questions may be directed to Brian Kelly of our
' Hydraulics Section at 593 -8571.
• Mn /DOT recommends that platting of the property include dedication of 60 feet of right of
1 way from the in -place centerline to TH 101.
If you have any questions regarding this review please call.
' Sincerely,
' Cyrus Knutson
Transportation Planner
' cc: Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer
John Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor
An Equal Opportunity Employer
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
(612) 361 -1010
FAX (612) 361 -1025
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
600 EAST 4TH STREET, BOX 6
CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
r
COUNTY OF CCAQV EL
August 2, 1994
To: Sharmin AI -Jaff, Chanhassen Planner II
From: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer ,'
Subject: Preliminary Plat
Great Plains Golf Estates (86 -31 Subdivision)
The following are comments regarding the conceptual plan for the proposed Great Plains Golf
Estates on County State Aid Highway (CSAH 14), Pioneer Trail transmitted to Carver County by
your memorandum dated July 12, 1994.
Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are:
Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
2 -lane Roadway 2 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 110' 120' 150'
Urban Undivided
4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
100' 120'
Rural Undivided
4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
140' 170'
Pioneer Trail east of TH 101 was reconstructed in 1986 as a rural section. The existing
100 foot corridor just meets the minimum right of way width. The existing easement width
of CSAH 14 west of TH 101 is only 90 feet and does not meet this criteria. CSAH 14 is
classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County
Transportation Study. It would appear that as a minimum, a 100 foot corridor should be
established for a potential 4 lane urban roadway. The proposal should at least meet that
minimum.
The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed area
if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width
may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping.
2. An access permit will need to be obtained from Carver County for construction of the
proposed access to CSAH 14. No additional accesses will be allowed onto CSAH 14.
3. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 14 right -of -way are subject
to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on Recycled Paper
Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste
1
i
L
7
J
' 4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right -of -way of
CSAH 14 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 proposed shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to
maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection.
7. The establishment of the lots as shown greatly restricts options for improvements to the
' TH 101 /CSAH 14 intersection. This detail should be reviewed with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation.
I Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the conceptual plan for the proposed development.
1
MEMORANDUM
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 II
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer K_(J�Z�
Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
DATE: July 27, 1994
SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Halla's Great Plains Addition
LUR File No. 94- 15/LUR File No. 89-14
Upon review of the site grading, drainage and erosion control plan dated July 1, 1994, prepared
by Roger Anderson & Associates along with the preliminary plat prepared by Egan, Field &
Nowak, Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations:
GRADING & DRAINAGE
The applicant has submitted a detailed site grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the
overall development. However, according to city ordinance, the grading plan should show
existing and proposed 2 -foot contours for street construction, drainage swales, berms and house
pads in order to determine the full impact of the development. The applicant has supplied a
detailed development plan indicating the house floor elevations; however, it does not propose site
grading around the homes. One example is on Lot 4, Block 5 where the home pad is situated
within an existing drainage swale. No provision are made to reroute the drainageway. This type
of adjustment must be taken into consideration with the final grading plan.
It appears that the site will be broken up into six drainage areas. Storm runoff from the site is
proposed to meet predeveloped runoff rates and most ponding areas are designed to the National
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. There are a few areas that still will need to provide
temporary pretreatment areas such as the area north of Maple Court. Staff believes we can work
this out with the applicant's engineer. In the development on the west side of Trunk Highway
101, approximately one -half of the site drains west to the existing pond in the west - central
portion the site (behind the nursery building). The existing pond appears to receive storm runoff
from the west (golf course) in addition to runoff from the site. The storm drainage calculations
also need to incorporate the existing drainage from outside the development such as the golf
course. The City's Surface Water Management Plan proposed the central and southern portions
of the development to drain to a future stormwater /sediment pond BC -P7.1 (Attachment No. 1)
1
1
1
1
Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 2
located east of the existing nursery building adjacent to Trunk Highway 101. This pond has a
tributary drainage area of approximately 40 acres. The storage volume is estimated at 2.1 acre
feet with a normal water elevation of 919.0 and a high water level of 924.5. The existing pond
' behind the nursery may be combined with Pond B. At minimum, the outlet from the existing
pond should be rerouted and directed through Pond B to reduce the number of discharge points
to the east underneath Trunk Highway 101.
i Approximately a quarter of the westerly site drains north with street drainage carried to the
northeast corner of the site. According to Carver County Highway Department, there is a culvert
' underneath County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail) that has previously experienced some capacity
problems. Location of the culvert should be shown on the grading plan. The SWMP shows the
northern portion of the site drains to an existing wetland (BC- P5.13) located north of County
Road 14. The basin is an existing ag /urban wetland and therefore runoff needs to be pretreated
prior to discharging into the wetland. Since the City has not obtained or acquired the necessary
ponding easements over the wetland, this development may be considered premature in
' conjunction with the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Plan. The applicant will be required then
to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate and water quality treatment to NUR? standards with
temporary on -site ponding. The applicant still will be required to pay a cash contribution to the
City Surface Water Management Fund for construction of future downstream water quality and
quantity facilities.
' The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. Dedication will be
equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving
the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a
' schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market
values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of
' the pond. If the applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be
waived.
' The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on average city -wide
rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP
culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Based on
the land use, this development will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. Staff is working
with the applicant on storm drainage plans at which time fees will be reduced in accordance with
the SWMP requirements. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity
fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as
outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc.
' Approximately one - quarter of the site drains to the southwest corner of the development. Storm
runoff to the southwest corner on the site is also proposed to be ponded (Pond "A ")and the runoff
controlled at predeveloped rates. The stormwater discharge from pond flows along the north side
of Creekwood Drive west of this development to an existing drainage culvert underneath
Creekwood Drive. The drainage then is conveyed over land through a steep ravine to Bluff
Creek. In the past, this area has been prone to erosion and has been used as a dumping and
Sharmin Al -Jaff ,
July 27, 1994
Page 3
filling ground for different parties. The development of this property will only increase the
volume of runoff draining through the ravine. The applicant currently owns property which was
platted previously as Outlot D, Great Plains Golf Estates. Staff recommends that the developer
convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for future construction of storm '
drainage infrastructures to control erosion and convey storm runoff to Bluff Creek.
Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the plat has
been revised to accommodate staff changes in the plat's street and lot configuration. The
,
developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with revised detailed storm sewer
drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm drainage system on the east side of Trunk
Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat. The revisions are further explored in the
appropriate sections under "Streets /Access ".
'
Trunk Highway 101 is a temporary state highway with no plans for upgrading. As a result of
the initial platting of Great Plains Golf Estates, additional right -of -way was dedicated for the
future realignment of Trunk Highway 101. However, actual construction of Trunk Highway 101
,
is not scheduled and therefore interim safety improvements are recommended along existing
Trunk Highway 101 in the following areas:
'
1. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery
entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant is also proposing
to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff recommends that the
'
existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to improve sight lines and
berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height.
j ust
'
2. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive shall
J
be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet MnDOT
standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
,
3. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose sight
distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented by the applicant's
engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the posted speeds.
East of Trunk Highway 101 the grading plan proposes utilizing an existing drainage basin located
on Lot 3, Block 6 (Pond D). This basin qualifies as a wetland according to the Army Corps of
Engineers and will need a permit to excavate. This basin is also proposed as a stormwater
sediment trap in the SWMP with a normal water elevation of 892.5 and high water elevation of
897.1. The applicant's storm calculation is somewhat lower. This is anticipated due to the fact
that the amount of contributing area is less than proposed in the SWMP. The existing basin has
a makeshift outlet control structure to maintain water levels in the pond. Staff is familiar with
this drainage basin from past dealings with the applicant in securing a grading permit to fill in
a portion of the downstream ravine. It appears the applicant has been filling this ravine without
an appropriate permit and with unacceptable materials such as landscaping debris and other
materials that will settle over time and create erosion and shear failures on the bluff. Staff
Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
1 Page 4
recommends that the applicant be required to re- excavate all unacceptable materials and backfill
with engineered fill as well as replace the existing storm drainage pipe (24 -inch CMP) to
maintain the structural integrity of the storm drainage lines since the City will no doubt be taking
over the maintenance responsibilities of the storm sewer system after the project is completed.
A couple of significant trees exists around this same ponding basin. There are also a couple of
dead trees. The grading proposes expanding this ponding basin which would result in the
' removal of all trees immediately adjacent to the existing pond. The applicant's engineer should
redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D ") to accommodate the existing significant trees that are
alive yet.
' UTILTTIES
The previous preliminary plat submitted clustered the lots on the west side of Trunk Highway
101 with the intent of leaving the remaining site undeveloped. Staff at that time indicated that
the applicant should be required to meet urban standards since the lot sizes and densities
accounted for these standards being warranted. This means that the City would require that dry
sanitary sewer and water lines be installed for future hookup and the streets constructed to urban
standards. Staff indicated at that time if the lot sizes were increased to one acre in size (average),
staff would reconsider the requirement for an urban street section and dry utility lines. As
proposed, the lots are well over the one -acre size average and therefore staff will not require that
urban street sections or dry utility lines be installed. Staff recommends that the streets be
constructed to meet the City's typical rural street standards (see Attachment No. 2).
Currently the site is outside the WSA boundary and there is no sanitary sewer or water service
to the site; therefore, the individual lots will be dependent upon on -site septic and well systems.
The City's building department will be performing a review of the plans and preparing the
appropriate memo regarding well and septic availability.
STREET /ACCESS
Streets within the development are anticipated to meet the City's rural street standards. However,
the typical street section as proposed does not currently meet the City's rural roadway section.
The applicant's engineer should revise the standard detail to meet the City's standard rural street
section (see Attachment No. 3). The applicant is providing the necessary 60 -foot wide right -of-
way and 60 -foot radiuses in the turnarounds. Street grades range from 0.50% to 4.00% which
meets City standards.
On the west side of Trunk Highway 101, the applicant has significantly redesigned the street
layout from the previous preliminary plat submittal. The applicant is proposing two streets,
Golfview Circle and Halla Nursery Vista. Golfview Circle is proposed to access from
Creekwood Drive which is shown as Town Road on the plans. Golfview Circle will be a
deadend cul -de -sac approximately 1,000 feet long with no secondary access. Halla Nursery Vista
accesses from Trunk Highway 101 and branches off into two separate cul -de -sacs ( Golfview
Court and Vista Court North). Neither one of the street alignments proposed provide for future
Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 5
extension through the nursery site and potential looping of the two street systems. Although the
traffic volumes may be low due to the land use, staffs' policy is to look for a secondary access
whenever feasible. At some point, the nursery may no longer be located on Outlot A which
opens the door for additional residential development. Since no further access will be allowed
off of Trunk Highway 101, provisions for looping the two street systems through Outlot A from
Golfview Circle or Golfview Court should be explored by the applicant.
East of Trunk Highway 101, Halla Nursery Vista is proposed to loop back out to County Road
14. Staff is aware of an existing private road which lies adjacent to the southerly boundary of
this development. The existing road is constructed within a 30 -foot wide easement which serves
the existing home on Outlot C, Great Plains Golf Estates (David Halla) and two other homes.
In addition, two other home sites are potentially available in the Bursch Development which lies
immediately west of Outlot C. Staff believes that the Halla Nursery Vista road should be
realigned to follow this private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road.
Upon review of the file staff has found previous concept or preliminary plats showing this
roadway alignment which we believe is more feasible from an engineering and transportation
standpoint. We recommend that the applicant go back and revisit the situation and redesign the
plat incorporating the existing roadway.
When the subdivision immediately to the east of this development (Deerbrook Addition) was
developed, a stub street was to be provided to access this site (Great Plains Estates development).
Upon review of the final plat of Deerbrook, there is only a 60 -foot wide drainage and utility
easement that was dedicated to the City for the extension of a roadway. Unfortunately, this
easement does not adequately allow the City to construct a roadway to connect the two
subdivisions. In addition, a very large earth berm has been constructed over the City's 60 -foot
wide drainage and utility easement. Therefore, at this time it appears unfeasible to consider
connecting Deerbrook with this proposed subdivision. This is unfortunate because it would have
allowed another access to an extremely long dead -end cul -de -sac on Deerbrook Drive.
County Road 14 and Trunk Highway 101 are functionally classified as minor arterial (Class 2)
roadways in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. During the previous platting of
Great Plains Golfview Estates, the City has acquired the necessary right -of -way for Trunk
Highway 101. It is unclear from the previous plat if adequate right -of -way was dedicated for
County Road 14. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County
that appropriate right -of -way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one -half of the
minimum 100 -foot wide corridor for County Road 14. In addition, the County requests
consideration for an additional trail easement if a trailway is to be constructed along the County
highway. Standard trail easement is 20 feet wide. Access to the individual lots should be limited
to the interior streets and not from County Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
The applicant is proposing a north /south street named Birch Drive which intersects County Road
14. Upon review of the City's half - section map it appears that Birch Drive is offset
approximately 50 feet from the existing Foxford Road which lies north of County Road 14.
From a continuity standpoint, staff believes that these two streets should be aligned across from
Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
1 Page 6
one another. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be
continuous with Foxford Road at the intersection of County Road 14. Access permits will be
required from both MnDOT and Carver County Highway Departments.
EROSION CONTROL
I I
1
,I]
A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer
prior to final platting. Staff recommends the applicant use the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas are the result of construction shall
be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to prevent erosion and sedimentation.
If at all possible, construction of the site in stages is preferred to help reduce erosion problems.
MISCELLANEOUS
Since development will involve public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter into
a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation
of the public improvements and final plat conditions of approval. The appropriate drainage and
utility easements shall be shown on the final plat overall drainageways and ponding areas.
The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way.
The preliminary plat proposes Outlot A which currently has an existing structure. Outlot A is
currently used as the Nursery business and should be platted into a lot and block. The final plat
should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block
2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains Golfview Estates.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant will need to provide revised detailed storm calculations for 10 and 100 -year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality and quantity ponds
in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall retain on site the predeveloped runoff rate as
well as provided interim water quality and quantity ponds. The applicant shall provide
detailed pre- developed and post - developed storm water calculations for existing and
proposed storm water basins. In addition, water quality pond design calculations shall be
based on Walker's pondnet model.
2. The streets shall be constructed to the City's rural street section. Detailed construction
plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City
Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans shall be designed
in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates.
Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 7
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
with final plat conditions of approval.
4. The applicant shall meet wetland fill and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in the
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to
or concurrent with wetland fill activity or excavation in future phases of the project.
5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of
Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their
conditions of approval.
6. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
storm water drainageways and ponding areas lying outside the street right -of -ways. The
minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for
access for maintenance of the storm water ponding areas. Outlot A shall be platted as a
lot and block.
7. The applicant's engineer shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be submitted to the
City for review and formal approval.
8. The grading plan shall be revised to relocate all berming outside street or trunk highway
right -of -ways. The berm shall be limited to 4 feet high with 3:1 slopes along Trunk
Highway 101 right -of -ways. In addition, the grading plan shall show all proposed grading
as a result of drainage improvements, street and house construction. The applicant's
engineer shall work with staff in developing a revised storm drainage plan to
accommodate plat revisions.
9. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall
be a minimum of three feet above the 100 -year high water level. All storm water ponds
shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more
than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes.
10. The outlet from the existing pond behind the nursery shall be re- routed and directed
through Pond "B ".
11. Existing wells and septic systems on the site which are not to be utilized shall be properly
abandoned in accordance with City or State codes.
12. The applicant shall be responsible for the appropriate storm water quality and quantity
fees based in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The requirement
I I
' Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 8
' for cash fees in lieu of land or permanent pond construction shall be based upon the
schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
13. 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.
' 14. The developer shall convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for
future construction of storm drainage infrastructures over Outlot D, Great Plains Golf
Estates.
' 15. Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the plat
has been revised to accommodate staff changes in the plat's street and lot configuration.
' The developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with revised detailed
storm sewer drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm drainage system on
the east side of Trunk Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat.
16. The applicant shall modify the plans and incorporate the following safety improvements:
' A. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the
nursery entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant
' is also proposing to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff
recommends that the existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to
improve sight lines and berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height.
' B. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive
shall be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet
MnDOT standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
C. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose
sight distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented by
the applicant's engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the
posted speeds.
' 17. The applicant shall be required to re- excavate all unacceptable materials in the ravine on
Lot 3, Block 6 and backfill with engineered fill as well as replace the existing storm
drainage pipe (24 -inch CMP) with concrete pipe.
18. The applicant's engineer should redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D ") to
accommodate the existing significant trees that are alive yet.
19. The applicant shall provide for the future looping of the two street systems through Outlot
' A from Golfview Circle or Golfview Court.
Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 9
20. Halla Nursery Vista road east of Trunk Highway 101 should be realigned to follow the
private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road.
21. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County that
appropriate right -of -way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one -half of the
minimum 100 -foot wide corridor for County Road 14.
22. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from County
Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
23. The applicant shall revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be continuous with Foxford
Road at the intersection of County Road 14.
24. The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way
25. Outlot A is currently used as the Nursery business and should be platted into a lot and
block. The final plat should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show Lot
1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains Golfview
Estates.
jms /ktm
Attachments: 1. Surface Water Management Plan.
2. Typical rural street detail.
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
g \eng \dave \projects\halla \ppr
�BC5.35 862,4 n�a,a .� aez.o /ss4.5 BC7.1
4 2y %&9000* / 241
BC7.9::. 2
4 ec -P7.f sees a9 .l
3C6.21 ! `J ✓ ` }� 8.0 924.5 24' BC7.18� BC7.13
. ................. .
t ac - Fi4.f C7.2 I 7.11 3C
BC6.27 925.0/931.0 ` T f ^•
24 1 BC7.6 y� 30 l 2
2
1
e� -fs.�s �► r 3 BC7.5 ( 27"
` t 1
3 .24 �26C6.25 15 � 24' BC6.28 -
n P7.6 2 I
C BC- R4.f81< BC7.7 776.0 7893
BC7.4 21 ° 820.0 823.8 J
-1-2 BC629 v _
_..._. _ ...... _ _._...__..._ __.._...... _._......_ _ _.
30'� BC6.30r 719
BC - RS.f� BC6.31r 24" wv °� Ci
86b.6 8b9 3 1 ..
/
127, 24
°i' f BC8.2�3C!'
C7.20
24_ BC7.21 36" ec -ps.-
- 14 0 819.7 30,r''� BC�-F7 Q [
7120 17.2
i LOM1. 2 \ 1L 752.0/761.7 f! - 7,22 1 722.o/727 ` :� 27
p
\24 " 24
/sc 7.24 l OM1.24i ?r X14 8020.Q05.9 r t- 'BC725
24" cs,3 ° „ �7 23 2 7" � } I,
1 f Lv�1F -Pr n
79E 0/804 4 71 0 8.7
r J
pr.�z L 0L 225- 7.2 <'' 2
P C6.34 724.0 728.9
` �. f 6.33 " B� 1 i 24
724.0 731.6 BC7.2k
8r-F8 EZ �4
'��} -� Y
11 �LOM1: - 2
r
7
24
yygL. 1 aK�, C8.3 � ' RICE
L
�•� uX' ' x ` w �^ x� .<ti�PC Z�-*� ;.fi `�s c••Vv�i•i
�o
N
1 �
t0 1
n
x
O O-�
D
m
N t�
1 �
t�
T
r
D
m
--�
z
-C
Ul
C
>
6 .
396
TYPE 41 PLANT NIXED NTUMNOUS WEARMO COURSE
TYPE 31 PLANT KUM KrUMMOUG BASE COURSE.
Ur CLASS 8 QMMML (IW% CI KMM).
s' Cuss s GROOM SHOULMM (100% CM)S1ED).
NOTES:
R/W REQUIRED — GOFT.
Nrl. STREET GRADE 0.75%
NNW(, ST. GRADE 7.0%
4A' TOPSOL PLACED N
TYPICAL SECTION
FOR
RURAL ROADWAYS
f
3%
'
s ROLLS SOD BEHIND CURB
N r " j NOTE: THE snampNOUS WEARING SURFACE SHALL BE PLACED THE NEXT CONSTRUCTION SEASON FOLLOWING
Du PLC OF THE BRUNNOUS BASE THIS WILL REQUIRE READJUSTING MANHOLE CASTIHOS AND GKrE VALVES.
m
rn
iii � � � � � � � � � � � r � r � ■� ■i �
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' MEMORANDUM
' TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
' DATE: July 27, 1994
SUBJECT: #86 -31 SUB (Don Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates)
' I have been asked to comment on the above referenced application,
stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JUL 06 1994, CHANHASSEN
PLANNING DEPT ". Many of the concerns expressed in my previous memos
(December 13, 1993 & February 7, 1994) have not been addressed.
Specifically, requirements for the ISIS sites included in my memos
and reiterated to Mr. Halla in your April 20, 1994 letter have not
' been met. Additionally, house pad designations and elevation
requirements have not been met. The latest proposed plat has also
created additional problems with street names.
' BACKGROUND:
Proposed treatment sites were evaluated by Resource Engineering in
' 1986 when the application was originally, submitted. The original
lot configuration and proposed treatment areas are shown on the
proposed plat stamped "OFFICIAL COPY" and dated as approved by
' Council on July 6, 1987.
ANALYSIS•
' Individual Sewage Treatment Sites
The current proposal is, once again completely changed from that
' of July 1987. These proposed changes from the 1987 plat, for the
purposes of onsite sewage treatment sites, necessitate complete,
new evaluations of the currently_ proposed sites. Sites must be
evaluated for depth to mottling, soils, orientation, area and
location relative to buildings, property lines, wells, etc.
Additionally, ISIS evaluations must comply with other code
requirements designed to assure the integrity and suitability of
the sites and future ISIS. Individual sewage treatment systems
(ISTS) are regulated by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080, Individual
Sharmin Al -Jaff ,
July 27, 1994
Page 2
Sewage Treatment Standards as amended by the City in Chanhassen
City Code, Article IV.
The following are concerns and /or comments concerning the proposed i
ISTS sites.
Depth to mottling. Mottles, if present, are indicated on '
required boring logs. Mottles are splotches of red, yellow,
or gray colors in the soil indicating zones of seasonal soil
saturation. The bottom of an ISTS must be located three feet '
above this zone in order to achieve required treatment. The
code requires that at least one foot of suitable (unmottled)
soil be present at an ISTS site. Mottles are difficult to '
detect in topsoil without the use of a color chart, therefore
all sites indicated as having mottles at one foot and with a
foot or more of topsoil are subject to close scrutiny prior to ,
being accepted as viable ISTS sites. No boring logs have been
received for the currently proposed sites!
Soils. In addition to requirements for separation from
'
mottles, onsite soils must be evaluated for texture, structure
and permeability. These evaluations determine the level of
ability of the soil to accept and treat waste. Acceptance of
a site for an ISTS is based, in part, on the measurement and
'
evaluation of these soil characteristics, and is predicated on
the assumption that the soils on a site are undisturbed.
Activities such as tree removal and field roads create
'
disturbed areas which may alter the treatment ability of the
soil. The 1986 evaluation report from Resource Engineering
indicates that the report is based "...solely on data
submitted to the City of Chanhassen ". There were no field
,
observations conducted by Resource Engineering, and it is
doubtful that they were aware of the use of the property.
7080 requires that mounds be constructed on original soils.
'
Page nine of the enclosed May 1994 report from Resource
Engineering, although reporting on a different lot
configuration, is for the same general area and casts doubt on
,
the acceptability of many of the currently proposed sites.
It cannot be determined from existing documentation that the
proposed sites contain all original soil.
'
orientation. It appears that proposed sites are correctly
oriented, but field evaluation by the City consultant,
Resource Engineering is required to confirm this.
'
Area (lot & site). It appears that adequate area has been
provided for ISTS sites, but field evaluation by the City
'
consultant is required to confirm this.
I Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 3
required to be licensed by Carver County. The site evaluator
' is not licensed in Carver County, nor identified as being
certified by the State.
Because proposed property lines are subject to change as the
' plat proceeds through the approval process, borings submitted
in relation to property lines cannot be accepted. Borings and
perc tests must be identified with unique numbers not related
' to lots or blocks. Staff visited the site on 7/26/94 and was
unable to determine property lines, ISTS sites or boring
locations. Accuracy of this information is vital to the
correct evaluation of the project. Proposed property lines,
' ISTS sites, perc tests and borings should be identified in the
field by labelled stakes.
Due to the commercial tree removal activity that has occurred at
the site, staff is unable to approve sites without additional
consultation with ISTS and soil experts. Resource Engineering is
the City consultant for ISTS and must be consulted prior to ISTS
site approvals. Their evaluation consists of a preliminary
evaluation based on information provided by the developer and a
site evaluation. The preliminary evaluation cannot take place
until:
• Two boring and perc test (if peres are required) locations for
each site, each with a unique identification, are shown on the
grading and drainage plan.
• Boring logs and perc test logs identified as the peres and
borings done at the locations shown on the grading and
drainage plan are submitted.
• Confirmation that all ISTS work was done by individuals
licensed to do such work.
Preliminary evaluation can be in conjunction with, or followed by,
a site evaluation which must also be conducted by Resource
Engineering.
Street Names
Concerns with street names have been addressed in Mark Littfin's
memo to you.
Dwelling Type
The type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections
Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan
review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance.
For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevations as well
as garage floor elevations are required to be indicated on the
proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE,
Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 4 ,
SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These
standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan I
review process. I have enclosed my January 29, 1993 memo explaining
these standard designations.
I have attempted to evaluate the proposed plat thoroughly, but the ,
applicants' failure to work with the City ISIS evaluator makes a
thorough evaluation impossible at this time. Results of these site ,
evaluations can affect all other aspects of this proposed plat.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
'
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with
the
following conditions:
'
1. Use Carver County licensed site evaluator.
2. Submit boring logs of borings done on each proposed ISIS
site
with a unique identification for each to Inspections Division.
,
3. Stake and identify proposed property lines, proposed
ISTS
sites and perc and boring locations.
4. Provide a preliminary evaluation report on the ISTS sites
from
,
Resource Engineering.
5. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show standard dwelling
type designations for proposed house pads.
'
enclosures: Dwelling type designation memo dated January
29,
1993
'
Resource Engineering report dated May 1994
cg:\ safety \sak \memos \plan \hla- glf.sa4 I
_l
1 J
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM. Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasonsng
behind the requirements.
FLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
R Designates Ramblcr. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings.
SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out_ This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling.
' WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with, the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
TU f SE R SEW O wp FLO
RLO
- - - - --
' Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
g P P
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
n
f i�� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
E
RESJURCE ENGINEEnING
Roger E. Marhnteicr.
29665 Neal ANrnuc
Lindstrom. MN 55045
(612) 257 -2019
.lames L. Anderson. C.P.s.s.
3541 Ensign Avenuc, North
New Hope, MN 55427
(612) 593 -5338
REVIEW OF PLANNING CASE NO. 86 -31
PROPOSED GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES SUBDIVISION
SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS
for the
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
by
JAMES L. ANDERSON, C.P.S.S.
ROGER E. MACHMEIER, P.E.
May, 1994
SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT
1 REVIEW OF PLANNING CASE NO. e6-31
' 1. Introduction
A review and assessment of a portion of the proposed
plat under consideration was made in December, 1986 and
January, 1987. In 1987, there was a deadline for the
' submission of subdivisions. Therefore, we were asked to
review the proposed Great Plains Golf Estates subdivision
based on the soil boring logs and other data submitted to
the City of Chanhassen to determine if each of the proposed
lots appeared to be adequate for the installation of two
onsite sewage treatment systems on each lot. We did not
conduct a lot by lot field review of the sites submitted by
the developer because it was in the winter. Based on the
submitted soil boring data and lot plats, we did prepare and
submit a table with our report indicating the type of soil
absorption unit needed.
It is possible that some of the proposed sites for soil
absorption systems in the original plat may not have been
suitable. At the time of the 1987 review, we were not
advised of the extent of the nursery field operations
conducted at the site. Adverse effects that the nursery
cultural practices may have had on the soils, such as
removing and replacing part of the soil profile, compaction
in field roads, compaction by tree moving equipment, root
pruning techniques, etc, were not considered. Before any
current subdivision plan is approved, these effects must be
taken into account. We did address the possibility of tile
drainage on the property and the effect on the development
of the lots. It is important to note that considerations
other than just total lot area are needed in order to
evaluate if the lots in a proposed subdivision are suitable
for onsite sewage treatment systems.
L
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31 Page 2 of 13
This report will discuss important criteria to consider
for the development of a lot with individual sewage
'
treatment systems, such as orientation of soil absorption
units, area necessary for construction of mounds and houses,
location of mounds with respect to low areas and
drainageways, location of water supply well, accessibility
of onsite sewage treatment system for future maintenance,
'
future accessibility of proposed secondary site for soil
absorption unit, and effect of nursery operation on the
suitability of soils for onsite sewage treatment.
Building Official,
Steve Kirchman, City of Chanhassen
made a lot by lot analysis of the present proposed
He
'
subdivision. evaluated orientation of soil absorption
units with respect to land slope and drainageways, location
of improvements, total area required, etc. In addition,
'
water supply wells need to be located so that they are
adequately separated from all soil absorption sites, both
,
primary and secondary, and those sites that exist or may be
needed on abutting lots. After a careful review of the lot
'
by lot comments made by Steve Kirchman, we concur with his
analysis that based on the submitted information there is
inadequate area for individual onsite sewage treatment
'
systems as presented on the proposed plat. There are other
factors which are equally important, leading to the
,
conclusion that none of the lots as presented in the
proposed plat are suitable. This report will discuss some
'
of the important issues which must be resolved before each
lot, and subsequently a subdivision, can be approved.
'
2. Size of area needed for sewage treatment system
Each lot must have an adequate and si-iitable area
available for two soil absorption units of the onsite sewage
treatment system. Two areas are required for the onsite
'
soil absorption unit for a number of reasons. If the
location of the lot is such that onsite sewage treatment I
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31 Page 3 of 13
will continue to be used, then there is a need to have two
' areas available for the soil treatment unit. Occasionally
the primary site is destroyed in the process of developing a
lot. Unless a secondary site is available, there is little
' recourse but to haul the generated sewage off the lot, at
great expense. In today's housing market, large houses are
being constructed which will likely generate daily sewage
flows greater than the amounts upon which the historic water
'
use data and design factors are based. When the actual
daily sewage flow is greater than the design flow, there
'
will be hydraulic overloading of the soil absorption unit.
The alternate area allows for expansion of the soil
'
absorption unit in order to treat the extra flow of sewage.
Today's water -using devices are quite different in many
'
respects from the basic water -using appliances upon which
the design flows were determined. Hot tubs and jacuzzis
discharge large quantities of water in short periods of
'
time. Such rapid discharges into a septic tank can result
in solids being flushed out of the tank into the soil
treatment system. Until the plumbing code reflects the
large water -using devices and the rapid discharges of waste
water which require two or more septic tanks in series, it
is desirable to have an alternate soil absorption area
'
available in the event of absorption unit failure.
By the size of the homes specified on the proposed
plat, it is assumed that the homes will be at the minimum a
Type I, 4- bedroom which according to Minnesota Rules Chapter
7080, will generate an estimated average sewage flow of 600
gallons per day. Mottled soils at shallow depths
predominate in the area as shown in the Carver County Soil
'
Survey and as confirmed by submitted soil boring data. A
'
review of the soils information from the Carver County Soil
Survey in January, 1987, to
was made our report of presented
the City of Chanhassen. Because of the mottled soils
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31 Page 4 of 13 1 1
indicated by the soil boring logs submitted with the
subdivision proposal, each lot must be carefully evaluated '
to determine if two suitable sites with adequate separation
are available for the installation of sewage treatment '
mounds.
The rock layer in a mound designed to treat 600 gallons
1997 review of the
of sewage per day should be 10
feet wide and 50 feet long.
'
In soils which are seasonally
saturated to a depth of one
,
foot, mound construction must
begin with a minimum of two
absorption
feet of clean sand at the upslope
edge of the rock layer.
,
The absorption area under the
mound required to treat the
to have at least a
liquid flow should be 50 feet
wide, 10 feet of which is
,
under the rock layer. Thus,
the downslope dike must be 40
since the
feet wide. The upslope dike
should have a slope of 4 to 1
mound will
or shallower for maintenance
purposes. The height of the
'
mound at the upslope edge of
the rock layer will be four
adjacent soil. Also, if the
feet. Thus, the upslope dike
will be 13 feet wide before it
'
contacts the original soil on
a 5 percent land slope. The
end slopes of the mound dikes
should also be on 4 to 1
'
slopes and will extend out at
least 16 feet at the upslope
edge of the rock layer and 20
feet at the downslope edge of
the rock layer.
The total width of the constructed mound from toe of '
upslope dike to toe of downslope dike will be 50 plus 13 or
63 feet on a 5 percent land slope. The total constructed '
length of the mound will be 50 plus 20 plus 20 or 90 feet.
In the
1997 review of the
proposed
subdivision, which
'
had 2.5 -acre
lots, the proposed
sites for
the soil
absorption
units were separated
and were
not abutting. It
is necessary
to have at least a
20 -foot
separation distance
,
between the
two proposed sites
since the
construction of one
mound will
require construction
traffic
that would tend to
'
compact the
adjacent soil. Also, if the
mound on the
length dimensions results in a total area of 103 by 130 feet
which should be reserved for each mound and its
construction. This is a total area of 13,390 square feet
for one mound, which is more than one -half the area of the
' proposed lots.
An important provision of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080
that should be noted is that mounds must be constructed on
"original soils so that there is at least 36 inches of
i separation between the bottom of the drainfield rock layer
and limiting soil characteristics . . ." Original soil is
defined as "naturally occurring inorganic soil that has not
been moved, smeared, compacted, nor manipulated with
'
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31
Page 5 of 13
an installed mound where construction equipment has operated
upslope site is
constructed first and the
secondary site is
Many of the two proposed sites for the sewage treatment
used later, it
will be virtually impossible
to construct the
sites. While this arrangement apparently has been presented
secondary site
because of the proximity of
the first mound.
impossible to construct a mound on the primary site without
Adding 40 feet
to the 63 -foot width and to
the 90 -foot
length dimensions results in a total area of 103 by 130 feet
which should be reserved for each mound and its
construction. This is a total area of 13,390 square feet
for one mound, which is more than one -half the area of the
' proposed lots.
An important provision of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080
that should be noted is that mounds must be constructed on
"original soils so that there is at least 36 inches of
i separation between the bottom of the drainfield rock layer
and limiting soil characteristics . . ." Original soil is
defined as "naturally occurring inorganic soil that has not
been moved, smeared, compacted, nor manipulated with
'
construction equipment." The soil around the periphery of
an installed mound where construction equipment has operated
'
to install that mound would not meet those criteria.
Many of the two proposed sites for the sewage treatment
'
systems are located side -by -side along the long axis of the
sites. While this arrangement apparently has been presented
to meet the alternate site requirement, it will be
impossible to construct a mound on the primary site without
adversely affecting the soils on the secondary site. Thus,
'
two abutting areas do not provide an adequate secondary site
for the onsite sewage treatment system. Also, the proposed
sites are not large enough for the size mounds that will
likely be constructed.
'
3. Orientation and location of mound sites
The long dimension (axis) of the mound must be located
approximately parallel to the existing ground contour lines.
The purpose is to spread the effluent along the slope. The
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31 Page 6 of 13
effluent percolates downward into the soil and down the
1�ilnpe Af tha original sail. Pressure distribution of
effluent in the rock layer assures that the length of the
rock layer will be uniformly loaded. With the long axis
parallel to the original ground slope, the percolating
liquid will not accumulate in greater volume than the
loading rate. Conversely, mounds constructed with their
long axis perpendicular to the original ground slope will
allow accumulation of percolating liquid along the length of
the mound resulting in mound failure.
The mound must be located on natural soils and on
slopes not exceeding 12 percent. Absolutely no grading to
modify the natural slope can be done prior to mound
construction. A mound can be located on a soil having as
little as 1 foot of unsaturated soil. Such soil requires a
2 -foot depth of clean sand prior to placement of the
drainfield rock layer.
Mounds must not be located in low areas subject to
flooding or in natural swales or drainageways. It is
important that the site for the sewage treatment system not
be located in areas where runoff water collects since excess
surface water will interfere with the hydraulic performance.
Therefore, sewage systems cannot be located in drainageways,
depressions or in other low areas of the landscape that
collect or concentrate water. The natural collection of
water flowing to the center of a drainageway will cause the
mound to fail hydraulically.
4. Accessibility of sewage system for service
Septic tanks must be accessible for cleaning and
possibly other service. The pump tank must also be
accessible for maintenance and service. If a septic tank or
pump tank need to be replaced, a backhoe would be needed for
J
Review of Planning Case No. B6 -31
Page 7 of 13
excavation and a large truck would be needed to transport
the new tank to the location.
No other improvements on the lot such as the house, the
sewage treatment mound, or other buildings can be
constructed and located so as to block access to the septic
tanks and the pump tank.
Both the primary and secondary sites must, of course,
be accessible for construction of sewage treatment mounds.
This accessibility must be maintained in the future for the
second site against encroachment by any other lot
improvements.
I A lot is likely to need a yard living area for family
activities and green space. The area reserved for the
secondary site for the soil absorption unit can be utilized
as lawn area but must be reserved for replacement of the
soil absorption unit. This alternate area must have
suitable soil, must be adequately separated from the water
supply well, and must not be used as the location for any
'
other improvements or structures on the lot.
'
5. Water supply well location
The water supply well must be located at least 50 feet
'
from any part of the sewage treatment system such as the
tanks, tank the
septic pump and absorption area of mound.
The same 50 -foot separation distance must be maintained for
sewage treatment systems on adjacent lots. There will need
to be careful coordination of water supply well locations on
'
adjacent lots, so that the water well location on one lot
does not eliminate a potential sewage treatment site on an
'
adjacent lot.
Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725, Rules Relating to Wells
and Borings states that the water supply well shall be
located at a point of the lot higher than potential sources
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31
Page 8 of 13
of pollution. Wells should not be located in low areas,
swales or drainageways.
The well location must be suitable for the well
drilling rig to operate. The location must remain
accessible in the future for equipment to travel to the well
for maintenance.
6. Soil and site evaluation
Soil boring data must be collected from the actual
sites which are proposed for the location of the primary and
secondary mounds. The sites must be accurately located on a
scale map of the lot and the soil borings taken within the
areas of the specified sites. Soil boring data taken at
other locations on a lot are not suitable to evaluate the
suitability of sites. The number of soil borings needed for
each site proposed for the soil absorption unit will vary
depending on the soil and the prior activities on that site.
Sufficient borings must be taken to assure that the soil
over the entire absorption area of the mound has original
characteristics and has sufficient permeability to allow
liquid to percolate downward.
Mound design and construction specifications are based
on original, undisturbed soil. Original,soil is defined in
Chapter 7080.0020, Subp. 24c as "naturally occurring
inorganic soil that has not been moved, smeared, compacted,
nor manipulated with construction equipment." Any soil
which has been smeared or compacted by any type of
construction activity likely will not be suitable for the
location of a sewage treatment mound.
If borings indicate soil compaction, percolation tests
must be performed at a depth of 12 inches to determine if
the percolation rate at that depth is faster than 60 minutes
per inch.
r
7
7
L
r
Review of Planning Case No. 96 -31 Page 9 of 13
7. Nursery operation activities and effect on soils
All sizing criteria for soil absorption units are based
on the assumption that the soils are in their natural state
when septic tank effluent is applied. To the extent that
nursery activities have disturbed the soils will determine
whether an area remains suitable for the installation of the
soil absorption unit.
The operation of a nursery may have much more
concentrated equipment and machinery travel than a farm
field where crops such as corn, soybeans, hay, etc., are
grown and harvested. If the soil profile to a depth of one
to two feet has been graded, windrowed, or removed, that
location likely is not suitable for the installation of a
sewage treatment mound.
Areas where original soil has been removed and replaced
by tree transplanting activities likely will not be suitable
for the installation of a sewage treatment mound.
Transplanting sizable trees requires that a considerable
ball of soil be removed with the root system. The weight of
the soil and the tree will be on the wheels of the
equipment. This weight will cause soil compaction,
particularly if the soil is fine textured such as a clay
loam and if the soil is relatively wet.
Sandy soils have very little structure and poor
construction practices often do not have major effects on
that soil's ability to absorb liquid. The same is not true
of loam and clay loam soils. For example, construction and
equipment traffic can cause severe compaction of a loam or
clay loam soil. To illustrate the effect of vehicle
traffic, a study was recently made by the Minnesota Onsite
Sewage Treatment Contractors' Association on a loam soil
with a percolation rate of 6.3 minutes per inch in the upper
12 inches of soil. After four passes with a single axle
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31 Page 10 of
13
truck: loaded With 5 cubic yards of sand, the same soil
showed a percolation rate of 53 minutes per inch at the
12 -inch depth. If a clay loam soil with an original
'
percolation rate in the 46 to 60 minutes per inch range
were
subjected to similar traffic, the result would likely be
a
'
soil unsuitable for the installation of a soil absorption
unit. Also, most construction traffic is considerably
,
heavier than the loads used in this study. If there is
only
one site available for the soil absorption unit and this
is
'
ruined by improper construction activities, a serious
economic burden will be placed upon the lot owner. An
'
alternate site being available is a necessary insurance
policy.
Areas which have been used for the storage and
stockpiling of nursery materials such as soil, rock,
,
landscaping timbers, etc., may also have compacted soil.
The vehicular traffic to bring the materials to the site
would have compacted the soil. The vehicular traffic to
'
remove amounts of the stored materials would also cause
soil
compaction.
,
If there has been heavy vehicular traffic as in field
roads or around existing buildings, these areas likely will
not be suitable for the installation of soil absorption
units. The field roads of the nursery and other areas with '
heavy traffic will likely have severely compacted soils.
Such locations can not be used as proposed sites for the '
sewage treatment mounds because the compacted soils have a
severely reduced soil permeability. Severity and depth of '
compaction depend upon the soil texture and the moisture
content at the time of compaction. If the traffic was more
or less continuous, then it is almost certain that the
moisture content of the soil was such that maximum '
compaction occurred at some time during the traffic
activity. Soil borings should be made to determine the
1
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31
Page 11 of 13
amount of compaction as well as soil texture and color. A
detailed site investigation must be made of each proposed
site, both primary and secondary, to determine if the soil
is original and is suitable for the installation of a sewage
treatment mound.
Construction of shallow drainageways needed for the
operation of the nursery will also impact the suitability of
specific sites. Drainageways that direct or concentrate
water in certain areas of the proposed subdivision may
render those areas unsuitable due to the presence of excess
water. In those areas where the actual drai nageways were
annstrur-ted, the original soil structure may have been
destroyed by compaction and smearing GA thAt the AA 0 Hl�ll
FiRt ,d1 =1=Rpt Fraptir- taf affluent as required by the State
Standards.
It has been reported that one nursery operation is to
draw a device through the soil at a 3 -foot depth to prune
the roots of trees. This operation could also provide
channels for the movement of soil water. Should such a
channel lead from an upslope area into a mound, the downhill
movement of soil water through this channel would likely
cause the mound to fail at an early date. The locations of
the use of the root pruning device should be delineated on
the proposed plat of the subdivision.
8. Area required for house construction
House sizes have been shown on the maps of the proposed
subdivision. Some are 60 by 60 feet, 50 by 70 feet, etc.
Of concern is the amount of construction area needed to
build houses of this size. This question was posed to a
building official and to a contractor. Both responded that
at least an additional 30 feet is needed on all sides of the
house under construction for the soil spoil bank, temporary
lumber storage, access roads for the cement trucks, parking
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31 Page 12 of 13
for construction workers, etc. And none of the area used
for construction activities on the house can be used for the
soil absorption unit of the onsite sewage system. The area
for the 60 by 60 house becomes 120 feet by 120 feet or
14,400 square feet. This is about half of the total area of
many of the proposed lots.
9. Additional considerations
After the preliminary plat is approved, there will be
considerable earth moving involved with the construction of
streets and the surface drainage system. Design criteria
for construction of onsite sewage treatment systems are
based on the use of the natural undisturbed soil profile.
If a site is graded, compacted or smeared, it is not
suitable for the installation of the soil absorption unit of
the onsite treatment system. Therefore, it is important
that the sites established are in areas that will remain
undisturbed during any other construction activities. They
should be clearly marked and protected.
When an area is to be subdivided into lots, soil
borings should be made in selected locations prior to any
lot lines being drawn. Soil borings should be used to
complement existing soil survey information. Also, a field
inspection of the area should note any severely compacted
sites, low areas, drainageways, excavations, etc. Only
after the soil texture and all of the physical features are
noted and evaluated, should the proposed lot lines be drawn
and then in such a manner that each lot has two separate
areas of original soil suitable for the installation of
either a trench system or a mound system for the soil
absorption unit. This procedure is particularly critical
when dealing with a proposed plat which has had many
activities which could have changed or damaged the original
soil characteristics. Drawing lot lines without benefit of
1
r
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31
Page 13 of 13
this information often raises unrealistic expectations for
the number of lots that will be suitable.
Some of the sites on a lot which may be judged to be
suitable for the installation of an onsite soil treatment
unit might conflict with the desires of a potential
purchaser as the prime building site. This situation will
need to be reconciled at the time of lot purchase and
certainly no later than the issuance of a building permit.
A point to note here is that no permits should be issued for
any construction on any lot until a scale map of the lot has
been submitted showing the two suitable sites for the sewage
treatment system, the proposed site for the house and other
improvements, and the site for the water supply well.
CITY OF
`i
CHANHASSEN ;
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner H
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal '
DATE: July 22, 1994
SUBJ: Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates - Planning Case 86 -31 S.U.B.
I have reviewed the submitted preliminary plot for Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates and made '
the following comments:
1. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be designed; shown on site plan; '
and, approved by the Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department.
2. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with Chanhassen
Engineering and Fire Department approved provisions for the turning around of fire
apparatus.
3. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads
of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all- weather driving
capabilities. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings. This
applies to homes which are in excess of 150 feet of State Hwy 101.
4. Street names:
a. Maple Court is not acceptable. The City already has 5 streets with "Maple" in the
name.
b. The street between Hwy 101 and County Road 14 is named both Birch Drive and
Halla Nursery Vista. The street must have only one name. Eliminate Halla Vista
Drive.
C. Rename "Golf View Circle ". Submit alternative name.
g:\safety\rnMatagolf.plr
Mui l81 Lem -: M.-W]
I
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 II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: July 22, 1994
SUBJ: Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates - Planning Case 86 -31 S.U.B.
I have reviewed the submitted preliminary plot for Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates and made
the following comments:
1. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be designed; shown on site plan;
and, approved by the Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department.
2. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with Chanhassen
Engineering and Fire Department approved provisions for the turning around of fire
apparatus.
3. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads
of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all- weather driving
capabilities. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings. This
applies to homes which are in excess of 150 feet of State Hwy 101.
4. Street names:
a. Maple Court is not acceptable. The City already has 5 streets with "Maple in the
name.
b. The street between Hwy 101 and County Road 14 is named both Birch Drive and
Halla Nursery Vista. The street must have only one name. Eliminate Halla Vista
Drive.
C. Rename "Golf View Circle ". Submit alternative name.
I g:\safety\mMalagolf.ptr
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46.5 ACRES INTO 36 RURAL SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, HALLA'S GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES,
LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 14 (PIONEER TRAIL), AND WEST AND
EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 (GREAT PLAINS BLVD), DON HALLA.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mike Lynch
LaVi Lynch
Paul Martin
Wayne Kinion
Steve McMeen
Doug Rynda.
David & Sharon Gatto
Mark D. Halla
Sandy and Don Hall
Roger Anderson
Dale & Peggy Gunderson
Deborah Graffunder
Jim & Jan Sabinski
Rick Schuelke
James Dingel
Karen Hasse
Claire & Anne Vogel
Spencer Boynton
17003 Sherwood Road, Millac, MN
925 Creekwood
9610 Foxford Road
9451 Foxford Road
9391 Foxford Road
9411 Foxford Road.
9631 Foxford Road
770 Creekwood
6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina
7415 Wayzata Blvd, Mpls.
845 Creekwood
10001 Great Plains Blvd.
775 Creekwood
10251 Great Plains Blvd.
9351 Foxford Road
630 West 96th Street
815 Creekwood
777 Creekwood
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report.
Mancino: Can I ask one more question. Is that even if it's in a mixed use area? Because
this is, it seems to be a residential subdivision around a commercial retail area. So does, how
does that work?
Al -Jaff: The retail area is an existing use. It's grandfathered in. They're not expanding the
use.
Mancino: And that area, the acreage that that takes up is part of the aggregate of the
subdivision? Is that included in the aggregate because you've got two different uses? Okay.
13
I Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
I
Al -Jaff: That's part of the 102.
' Scott: Because I know the small est lot I think is 60, 30,000 square feet. Something like that.
Mancino: Well I just thought the whole aggregate would just have to do with the
subdivision. The residential and wouldn't include a retail/commercial area with inside.
' Scott: Well that raises a question. So basically the existing use will continue and then there
will be 60,000 to however many thousand square foot lots around it. Is kind of what you're.
' Mancino: Yeah. My question is, can you really consider, both because we've never used it
as one whole unit when part of it's residential subdivision. And another part's a retail. A
whole different kind of use. And isn't the aggregate for the 1 unit per 2.5 acres a residential
subdivision requirement which has nothing to do with the retail area. Commercial area.
Don Halla: I'm sorry but I'm Don Halla. 1 think you're interpreting it backwards. Your
ordinance 2 1/2 lots per 1 acre rather than 1 lot per 2 1/2 acres which comes to 15,000 square
foot is the minimum lot size. Then there's other restrictions. I believe that's in the
ordinance.
David Gatto: May I say, I'm David Gatto and I represent the.
Scott: Well, wait a second. Wait a second. No. Planning Commission staff.
' Al -Jaff: Okay. The ordinance right now allows an overall density of 2 1/2 acres. One unit
per 2 1/2 acres. You may reduce the size of the lot, as long as they would maintain the
overall density.
Scott: Then in the calculations the lot that will contain the existing retail, I'll say retail
business is included as a lot.
' Al -Jaff: Correct.
' Scott: The outlots are also included as a lot from a standpoint of density calculations.
Al -Jaff: Right.
Mancino: It doesn't matter what their uses are?
I Al -Jaff: Correct.
1 14
1
J
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Mancino: Okay. Thank you.
Sharmin AI -Jaff continued with her staff report.
Mancino: I just have one more, if I can ask. Thank you Sharmin. And that is, this is guided
for residential large lot. So that means residential large lot is 1 unit per 2.5 acres. Is that
correct?
Al -Jaff: That's correct.
Scott: The question is, is that the density? Are we talking guided for a specific density or
guided for a minimum lot size or both.
Al -Jaff: That's grandfathered in.
Aanenson: Right now it's currently, as you recall, we have not... Right now we say 1 per 10.
If you recall that in 1987 we changed, based on the Met Council, they didn't want urban
sprawl, to allow 2 1/2 acre lots. So we went back and changed that based on the Met
Council's 1 per 10. Recently the Met Council said, that's creating some sprawl in a different
way so what we said is you can have, you can go as small as 15,000 square feet as long as
you could provide 2 drainfield sites in that septic. So if you have 40 acres and wanted to
cluster 4 units, you could do that. As small as 15,000 square foot lots as long as you provide
services. So when services do become available, we don't have the sprawl. And that's a
separate issue from this. What Sharmin is saying is we're going by the grandfather rights
that were given to them by the City Council at the 1 per 2.5 so that's what we're operating
under. He was given extensions by the City Council. So they're two separate things. The 1
per 2, the old pre -'87 which he is operating under.
Mancino: And now my question is, in the future we have several large lot developments.
We have Timberwood and we have lots of them around the city and we passed an ordinance
that says that those must stay 2 1/2 acres. They can't subdivide into 15,000 square feet.
Aanenson: The reason for that is preserving the integrity of those rural areas. If they all
want to come in and petition the city as a group to change. What we don't want is to have
individuals within there splitting off where people have bought into a rural atmosphere and
that sort of thing. So that's the intent of this.
Mancino: And you need 100% participation? Or close to.
Aanenson: Whatever the Council decides is appropriate.
15
J
117
1
F
J
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Mancino: Okay. And is that the same here?
Aanenson: No. Again, we want underneath, what he was given as an extension from the city
and that's what he's still pushing to ... Again, the rule change. He still was given an extension
of the old rules and that's what we're operating under.
Mancino: So you could go in and subdivide at the time the MUSA line moves, you could
subdivide this further?
Aanenson: Yes. If sewer and water is available... Part of why this got delayed is we were
looking at, there was the small lots and the 15,000 and we did look at that ..looking at some
other ways that this could be platted under small lots and clustering could be provided. That
was one reason why...
Mancino: So this is the only large lot subdivision that could be further divided into 15,000
square foot?
Aanenson: Well all of them could if they petitioned the city and it's inside the MUSA.
Outside, I mean if there were other subdivisions in the city that have larger lot and sewer and
water becomes available and they request the city, can we go smaller. Could we split up our
property when sewer and water becomes available, we certainly would look at it.
Mancino: My only concern about this is, is you have a subdivision and it's right now 1 to
2.5 acres and you have some people obviously who want to further subdivide and some who
don't and they bought into it thinking it was very rural and large lot, etc. And then you have,
I mean we'll hear years and years here, you have some homeowners who want to come in
and subdivide.
Aanenson: You're talking about the people that lie in the Golf Estates?
Mancino: Yeah.
Aanenson: Well again the same issue. We did put the same condition. You know the
Council... looking at a rural ... and leave it that way until the entire subdivision to further
subdivide.
Mancino: Okay.
Farmakes: Do some of these developments have private covenants that preclude subdivision.
Is this particular one in front of us considering that or is that?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Al -Jaff: We're not aware of any private covenants.
Farmakes: We talked at one time about looking at this problem and looking at ghost platting
in the event that these are subdivided. So what type of development we'd actually wind up
with rather than having piecemeal. Wondering if that went anywhere.
Aanenson: Well that was one of the options. We looked at doing clustering septic systems
with this plat and we looked at doing 15,000. Whether or not you could find acceptable
drainfield sites. So some lots ... as far as maintaining the density that was given to him and
trying to cluster it. It seems like this would be the best way to go.
Scott: Any other questions? Okay. Dave, do you have any comments?
David Gatto: Yes, we have quite a few.
Scott: Excuse me, Dave Hempel. Sorry.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, not really at this point. I'm open for questions. The staff report
should explain our concerns.
Al -Jaff: Mr. Chairman? Steve Kirchman is with us today if there are any questions on the
septic systems and how they operate. He will be available to answer your questions.
Scott: Okay. Steve would you, we've received some letters from, well why don't I just say,
do you have any comments you'd like to make at this time about the project?
Kirchman: No. Staff report pretty much says all I need to say so, if all those conditions that
were requested in the staff report are met, then we're going to be okay with it.
Scott: Okay, good. Thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: If anybody would like to speak about this particular issue. Or excuse me, we need to
hear from the applicant first. I'm sorry about that. Would the applicant like to speak? And
please give your name and your address and have at it.
Don Halla: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission.
Neighbors and members of the community. I'm Don Halla. I live at 6601 Mohawk Trail,
17
I
r�
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Edina, Minnesota. I have been in business since 1962 on the property in question. We
purchased the property back in 1962 as a family landscape nursery operation and grew trees
to sell them retail to the public. And we have been serving the community of Chanhassen
ever since then. It is a family business. We support many of the families in the community
who work for us. Some in landscaping and raising plant material. Back in 1986 we came to
the city to discuss I guess the changes in the ordinance which was taking us from 2 1/2 acres
for 1 lot to 10 acres. They put a period of time there for people to bring their plans and plots
in order to meet this criteria and we did. We had the benefit ever since then to follow all the
directions of the city and to maintain that window that we ... that they left open and be
accepted and subdivided their property at that point in time. Based on that subdivision that
took place in 1987, I purchased all the property from my brother... nursery business. And I
have been the sole owner of the property and the nursery since then. I've been working on
the premise though since 1962. Back in 1972 we also moved our total operation which was
located in Edina out to this site and have been operating 100% of the total business from this
site. Back in 19, we were approved for 37 lots to be put on this site. We do have that on
preliminary approval still standing. I guess that preliminary approval, which was shown
earlier, could in fact be enacted today and we could go to that layout. But back in 1992 I
was ready to do something and I came into the city staff and talked to Paul Krauss and we
were working with Jo Ann Olsen and Paul requested us to change what we had approved. He
said that he felt that it was very poor land use for the city. He didn't think that the two
developments that had developed to the north and east of us were working well as far as the
city was concerned for use of land. So at that time he said that he would like to see us
change the size of the lots and do it for 1/3 of one acre size. We hired Roger Anderson and
we redeveloped this property and came in with a plot that we presented to staff. To meet the
criteria that the then plan person asked us to do. By going through the city staff, they
decided they didn't want that. They decided they wanted the lots to be bigger for many
different reasons. So now we're back to really a 2 1/2 acre plan again. I believe it ... that was
pre- approved or we could go with this new one. We have had communications with the city
saying we want to maintain it but we can still do that originally approved 2 1/2 acre lot plan.
...good use as the one we had basically a year ago now. I don't think it's ... being in the
landscape business and being involved in landscape architecture and in fact I have a daughter
in law who was involved with city planning and park commissions out in Baltimore who is a
landscape architect ... I do not feel that we're necessarily using the best use of this land but we
have been farming it as a nursery business for many, many years. But we are now meeting
that criteria of larger lots. The 2 1/2 acres. I personally... There's become a question about
septic sites and that's why we're back to 2 1/2 acres. I don't believe there's been any
failures of septic sites on this land or any other land right adjacent to us. We have irrigated
this land in growing nursery stock and so on and yes, we have—certain areas. They also
found in the unirrigated areas that the ... model was somewhere between 4 and 7 feet. So
where we haven't caused the modeling by our growing of nursery stock which changed the
IN
1
II �
Mancino: I have a question Mr. Halla. On the west side you were clustering. What was '
happening on the east side then?
Don Halla: The east side was going to remain open. The east side was going to be open '
19 1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
chemical make up of the soil, it appeared there is very good septic sites throughout the site.
Anyway, this is where we're at. We're back to the 2 1/2 acres. We're back to where we
'
were in basically 1987 with a little bit different layout. And we want to do what's fair for
the community. That's what I've always said. That's why I went to talk to Paul. What
would the community like? What would the city like? And he asked us to make those
'
changes. We were asked to make a change again so now we're back at this point. And if
this is what the city wants, then that's what we'll do. If it's the first 2 1/2 acres that's
approved, then that's what we'll do. We're not trying to plague anybody. We're not trying
'
to create any problems. This is my retirement. I still plan to be in the nursery business there
for a period of time. I don't plan on moving out. That's why we're keeping that 11 1/2
acres in the center. We will continue to grow plants and continue in the nursery business
'
there. That is our intention. There are many things though that are requested in this go
around which make the development—cost prohibitive... From my standpoint, in farming the
land for this length of time, there's a few things that would be impossible to do. Pushing
'
water uphill. Changing and redoing Highway 101. Some of the things like that which I
believe are requested by the State before. ...personally seen the reports that say... In any case,
if this is the use that the community would like to see, and it is over 2 1/2 acres per lot at
this point, then we're happy to go along with that ... but in all sincerity, I don't think it's what
any of us ... Thank you.
Scott: Any questions for the applicant? Is there anyone else on your development team or
anyone else you would like to have speak?
,
Don Halla: Yes, Mr. Roger Anderson. I just would like to show the layout that was done if I
may, sorry. That was done for the interim one we were requested to do... This was the
design that we were requested to do by Paul and basically was a clustering type design. At
this point in time we had also explored with him the fact that the lots would be close enough
so that you could put in the small sewer system to approve and meet EPA. Hook these
,
people up to sewer and have the system work as kind of a community sewer system. Paul
was in, he said he had seen it work and was in favor of that idea but I believe other members
of the staff were not in favor of that so therefore this design was scrapped and we went on
'
to ... subdivision. This was clustering only using the west half of the property and still meeting
all the criteria of lot size and so forth required by the city with the exception that what was
asked for was considerably larger septic systems between this development and what we have
'
now.
Mancino: I have a question Mr. Halla. On the west side you were clustering. What was '
happening on the east side then?
Don Halla: The east side was going to remain open. The east side was going to be open '
19 1
u
�J
l J�
i�
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
land that would be used for nursery business for umpteen years... Somewhere in the
scuttlebutt too they wanted to develop it for a park. So it seemed like we were making,
working with the city and handling their situations and desire for putting a park in there and
at the same time obtaining the number of lots that could give me my retirement that I was
hoping for.
Mancino: Thank you.
Roger Anderson: Chairman and Planning Commission, staff and residents. My name is
Roger Anderson and I've done the design work for Don on this revised plat and the earlier
one that was submitted. The staff report that we received is very comprehensive and fairly
lengthy. There are quite a few issues regarding this property that needed to be addressed and
as indicated by the planning staff, we have been in discussions over quite a period of time
regarding all of these issues. Many of the things we talked about and the things we had to
look at regarding this plat were the results of those comments and suggestions from staff and
the input from Paul Krauss, who is not here right now but the plat has moved forward and I
think we've made good progress in coming to a result that we feel is good for the city. As
Don indicated, we think it gives us a little more land than would necessarily be required but
we're here tonight to present the plat and discuss it and deal with the issues that are before
us. To keep, since there are so many issues in the report, I wrote down our comments and
some broad categories that I will discuss. Hopefully briefly. If anyone has any questions
during the discussion of those categories, I'll be glad to answer questions. I think the history
and what I'll call the planning issues have been addressed fairly thoroughly. The history goes
back to when Don bought it in '62 and through the various changes in the plats that have
come since that time. I believe the report does say we're at 2.83 gross acres per lot and if
my math is correct, if we subtract out that outlot, we still are at almost 2.6 acres. If we take
out the nursery property which is about 11 1/2 acres, we're still in excess of that 2 1/2 acre
minimum. Also in the report I believe we meet the lot area, the setback requirements. There
are no various. No other requirements that we saw in the report that we did not meet. The
next issue that I'd like to address is the street layout. With the number of go arounds we've
had on this plat, we've had an opportunity to do quite a few things with the street layout and
look at several options. The plat Don showed you earlier showed the 35 lots on the westerly
side of the property and it showed that area connected to the road. With this presentation we
have not shown the connection on the north, from the south half. On the west side of TH
101 connected because staff has suggested that that probably would be a good idea. I believe
that is something we can incorporate into the plat. There are some other street issues though
that I think we are concerned about. The primary one being a suggestion that a portion of
Highway 101 be reconstructed as a part of our platting process here and the development of
the land. Highway 101 through that area has some substantial curves and visibility problems.
There are a number of things there. And from the developer's standpoint, one particular issue
20
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
is brought up the hill just north of Creekwood Drive. Our concern is that we're being asked
to correct a single problem. A stretch of road that has a substantial number of problems. It
is not our, it's unclear if we can have access to that to even repair that road if it's still
designated as a State trunk highway. There's a resident, there's a house immediately to the
east of that hill and you can see the reason the hill is there because they did not want to
cause problems for that residence. If we go in or if anybody does, I believe there will be
some implications there. The whole issue of whether or not we can go in and work on TH
101 I think is one that needs to be resolved. In addition on the east side of the property, the
suggestion was made that the private road along the south side of that parcel be the preferred
route for the road to serve Mr. Halla's property and I believe the suggestion was made based
on the fact that there are a number of individual lots all served by this private road. We feel
our property best lays out the way that we've shown it with some possible minor revisions
and that forcing us to put the road in that location, where the private road is now, is certainly
not in our best interest.
Scott: Excuse me, where is that? You're talking about the private road. You're not talking
about Creekwood?
Mancino: Right here. I think it's on his property.
Don Halla: It goes right through here. On the south side.
Roger Anderson: And if I understand correctly, there are parcels south of that private road
now that are served by that. It seems the best use of the property that we have to work with
is to put the roads in the locations that we've shown. We feel that obviously needs more
discussion and would involve a major revision to the plat obviously since the road ... about 300
feet. A further issue that I'd like to discuss briefly is the trees on the property. As Mr. Halla
indicated, it's been an active nursery for 32 years. There is some natural forested area on the
northerly property line against the county road and the staff has suggested that that area
should be generally preserved as a tree preservation area. With the exception of the fact that
we feel there are some houses that should be placed in there, we can still maintain very
adequate buffer between the county road of those houses. That seems to be an appropriate
use there. We do have and we do show grading in there to allow the construction of I
believe it's 4 houses along that bluff. They would be walkout houses encroaching no more
than they had to obtain that walkout and with minimal impact on the natural vegetation in
that area. The remainder of the site is predominantly remnant trees from Mr. Halla's
operations and they're a wide variety of trees and sizes and some are pretty rough. Many of
them are beautiful trees and it's our intention to save and protect as many of those as we can.
One comment the staff made was that we didn't show any site grading on this particular site,
and there are a couple of reasons. One is the soil treatment systems that need to go in. And
21
1
it
I
I Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
the other was that we don't want to disturb any more of those trees than we have to. We
' wanted to keep the grading hopefully confined to the streets and the drainage areas and
restrict it pretty much to just those locations.
Mancino: I have a question Mr. Anderson. The staff has requested about the tree
conservation along the northwest side here. Along County Road 14. Is there any other area
in the subdivision that the staff has requested you preserve trees? Or is that the only tree
preservation area that staff has directed?
Roger Anderson: The only other area I'm aware of is to preserve I believe it's 3 trees in the
' area of Pond B which is on the easterly end of the site. The storm sewer discharge. The
pond as I've shown it would impact those trees and they've asked that we make an
adjustment on that pond to save the trees and we'll be glad to look at that.
Mancino: Okay. So out of the whole 102 acres, staff has been pretty flexible about the
nursery stock but have asked that that one strip be part of the conservation?
' Roger Anderson: That's my understanding.
Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. I have one other question about the private
road. Who owns that private road? Is that property that the parties on the north own and the
parties on the south? Who owns the private road that goes through there right now that is
accessing the other homes to the south?
Roger Anderson: I believe Mr. Halls has the best information on that.
Don Halla: That is owned by several properties on the south. We actually have a private
easement to use that strip of property which is 30 feet wide. It was granted to us in the
purchase of our property that we have a 30 foot easement on the south side, not on our
property but on another property which then has been subdivided since then and it's really
been they've had to get our permission to use that since it was a project given at that time.
There has been granted subject to restrictions within that easement that they have to do
maintenance. It also says in that easement that if it ever goes to a public road, that they have
to give up the additional 30 feet for it to be a public road. That's what the easement says.
On the south side. So it's all south of our property. That was a term in our buying the
property. They gave us 30 feet. If it ever went to a public road, they would get another 30
feet for it to be a public road. That's public record.
Mancino: Thank you.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 1
1
Roger Anderson: The next area I'd like to address briefly is on the individual soil treatment
sites. A substantial amount of the information provided is regarding how this site would be
,
served. How we'd get mound systems in there. What the requirements may be and some of
this gets back to the history of where we've been and where we are now. The plat that was
submitted back in March with the 1 acre sites was reviewed by the staff and it was
determined at that time that the lots were a little bit too confined. They didn't allow the
flexibility orientation of access and a few other things that staff requested. And at that time
Mr. Halla suggested and requested that the city's consultant, Resource Engineering give us
some advice on where do we go with this plat. How can we get these mound systems in
here. They prepared a report in May of '94 and based on that report, we prepared the revised
plat that you see here. Their suggestions were basically to be very careful with orientation of
the mound systems. To allow for proper access. To allow adequate space for water supply
and wells that can't be too close to these systems. And they also pointed out particularly that
soils and site evaluation needed to be done for these sites. And that would include soil
'
borings and a look at the site by a soil evaluator. Site evaluator. As of this date, for this
specific plat we have not included those particular borings and that site evaluation. And our
reasoning is that we have redone this plat several times. There was a substantial expense in
having an evaluator go out and determine that these sites are adequate. And we've also got
some history out here. We had 70 borings approximately throughout the site in '86 and based
on that information all of the borings, with minor exception, show that the site was adequate
for the mound systems. And again in the fall of last year we had approximately 70 borings
done based on the previous plat you saw and with minor exceptions again, those borings
indicated that the site was acceptable. So based on that overall representation we felt fairly
comfortable with providing this plat for the city's review subject to a final review of these
sites and some potential adjustments, we expect there will be some, as a site evaluation is
done. But we didn't feel it appropriate, since it's changed a number of times, to spend that
'
money and then find, like we are finding right now, that ... potential for a major redesign of the
east side in particular. So we're prepared to go ahead with that and Mr. Kirchman may have
,
some input on that.
Kirchman: ...getting done right. I
Roger Anderson: The last issue is the drainage issue on this site. 102 acres is a big piece of
ground. We've got many types of drainage going on here and many different outlets. The '
city's requirement refers to approximately 6 outlets. In my evaluation of the runoff, I believe
I came up with about 15. Many of them flows around the perimeter ... flow off by surface
water flow and they will continue to do that after the plat is constructed. But also there are '
significant improvements on the interior of the plat including 4 additional, 3 additional ponds
and an upgrade to the one pond on the east end. Many culvert and surface drainage
improvements and also we've included the ponds to treat the water to NURP standards as '
23 1
I �
L�
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
suggested by the staff, which is a requirement to remove some of the nutrients and control the
runoff. So I think we've done a reasonably good job of addressing the runoff considerations
with the eye towards treat the water for phosphorous and no more of the water will run off
now than, or in the future than has right now and that's generally the guidelines we follow.
There are a couple of particular issues with the drainage that we're concerned about. The
existing nursery site, or the retained nursery site would be about 11 1/2 acres and I believe
indicated in the report, approximately 40 acres of the golf course to the west drains easterly
across Mr. Halla's property and into a pond that is behind the nursery and then under TH 101
and into a fairly deep ravine east of the highway. That's a substantial amount of water and
the city's storm water management plan reviews that information and layout and provides
storm water ponding there. But it seems to us the suggestion in the report that we reroute
that water and retain it and treat it as a part of this plat may be stretching things a bit. I
think that needs a look also where such a good portion of the golf course is coming through,
is it a reasonable expectation for Mr. Halla to have to provide for that with this platting. We
don't think so but we think there's some questions can be answered there. In addition, at the
northerly portion of this site, we're providing a pond for nutrient reduction that we feel can
stay in place and the staff had suggested. Now I'll point it out over here.
Mancino: What do you mean the existing one?
Roger Anderson: The water from that pond flows northerly into the wetland on the north
side of the county road. We provided a NURP pond there to treat the available runoff and
we feel that will do a reasonably good job up to NURP standards. The staff is suggesting
that Mr. Halla contribute to the long range pond construction fund of the city and we think
that needs a look to see what his actual obligation should be. And the other area is the red
circle which is Pond B on the right hand side which is the pond that was actually created,
how long ago Don?
Don Halla: Probably back at about 1970 through design and so forth the... stabilization work.
' Roger Anderson: Both the Pond B and the pond in the nursery were created as part of the
soil conservation service or the agricultural stabilization people and they have outlets in
design and parameters based on the information that they use and those ponds are in and
working fine. The city has asked for some upgrades. I think we need, that was another
question we had. Just what has to happen there. So there are a lot of issues here. I haven't
hit all of them but hopefully as briefly as I could, hit the predominant things that we're
' concerned with and some of the things we're trying to do to get a good quality plat for the
city. With that I'll answer any questions that the Planning Commission members may have.
I Scott: Good, thank you.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman.
haven't been submitted.
discrepancy?
t
The staff report indicates that the borings for the proposed sites
You've indicated that the borings have done. Can you clarify this ,
Roger Anderson: The borings have been done for two previous layouts and those are the,
there are 140 some borings that we have out on the site. For the exact configuration that we
have right now, we did not have a site evaluator go out and take brand new borings and do
the site evaluation for the reasons I explained earlier. We felt that we've been through
enough changes where if we spent the $5,000.00, whatever it was, already knowing that the
soil borings in general indicated there isn't a problem, and also knowing that the lots of this
size, if we do some minor adjustments in the location, extremely likely that we'll find a spot
that will function satisfactorily. We felt it was best to wait until we get the feedback from
the Planning Commission that we're on the right track as far as layout goes. Then we'd be
happy to provide the information.
Scott: ...what your answer was. The information exists but it has not been presented?
Roger Anderson: The requirement of the code is that the borings be taken at a certain
location with two borings in each one of the sites. And we have taken, as I indicated, 140
borings out there. Not precisely at that location but enough to get a good general feel for the
whole site.
Scott: So are the borings that have been taken that you have the information on, because the
lot lines have shifted or something like that inbetween plats, they no longer apply to the plat
that we have in front of us tonight.
Roger Anderson: That's correct.
Scott: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood that. Do you have any other
questions? Good. Is anyone else from the applicant wish to speak? Okay. Thank you.
Well we'll, can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: If anybody would like to speak about this issue, please step forward. Identify
yourself. Name and address and let us know what's on your mind.
David Gatto: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members. My name is David Gatto and I'm here
representing the Lake Riley Woods Homeowners Association. I've got some question and
25
L�
L�
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
some comments. I've got, there's a, I guess we want to make it clear to Mr. Halla that we
' don't oppose the development of the area but we've got a fairly unanimous petition here that
says that we absolutely want the lots to be 2 1/2 acres absent of all the funny math and all
the outlots and the various things going on. One can easily see, without even pulling out a
calculator, that some of those lots are not 2 1/2 acres. And as a matter of fact, I did some
arithmetic and the average lot size, if you add up the lot square feet and divide by the number
of lots, you get 2.04 acres per lot. So not only can you just simply see that some of them
aren't 2 1/2 acres but the average is substantially less than 2 1/2 acres.
Scott: Just the ordinance allows for outlots and.
' Aanenson: Well there's a ma ross and net. We need to et some additional... but again
g Y g
' we're falling into ... was given so many units under that preliminary plat. Since that time
we've allowed some flexibility as far as lot sizes go. He's got the same number of lots.
What he's done is he's clustered them differently.
Scott: The ordinance allows for a minimum of 15,000 square foot lot. But the average
density is.
Aanenson: He's still maintaining that. And that's what we're saying. He's still maintaining
the average density. It's just the.
' Scott: And the calculations allowed by the ordinance allow for the inclusion of outlots and
then the existing, the retail area as well as the growing range that will exist until some further
' time. I just wanted to make sure that we all understand what the ordinance is.
David Gatto: When you speak ordinances, are you talking about the present ordinance?
' Let's clarify that now.
Aanenson: Okay, what we're saying is that he was given under this 1987 plat or '86 plat, he
was given so many units on so much acreage. Okay, that hasn't changed.
David Gatto: Alright, that's good because that first plat we were showed, that we showed up
' there from 1987 shows the outlot developed and my guess is that has a minimum lot size of 2
1/2 acres. That's all we're, in fact we've got petitions. We have petitions from 29 people in
Lake Riley Woods that we can submit and it says we respectfully petition that Halla Nursery
' should not be allowed to redevelop their property any smaller than 2.5 acres and that the
minimum square footage requirements of 14,000 square feet, that's housing, be established in
' order to preserve the value of the properties surrounding Halla and maintaining aesthetic
appearance of the neighborhood at the level adhered to when our homes were built. Okay, so
I -7
Feel
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
we've got that signed. And that's just the people in our association. Since then we've heard
of other folks and I believe some of them are here tonight ... talk to you, that live outside of
Lake Riley Woods. Lake Riley Woods is east of Highway 101, north of Pioneer Trail and
there's a horseshoe shaped road called Foxford Road. That's, and then there's a couple cul-
de -sacs. Also I'd like to know, and maybe the City Attorney's assistant can help me. How
long was the extension valid that Halla was given when the city grandfathered him in in
1986? How long was the extension valid for?
Al -Jaff: 5 years.
David Gatto: Okay, thanks. And I'd also like to comment that during, well just recently here
in 1994 this outlot that his retail establishment's on they did, I don't know if you want to call
it an expansion or an improvement but an additional retail outlet was built on that in 1994 so
I don't know all the particulars behind this grandfathering business but those folks have
improved that during that time and added a substantial development on there, what they're
calling their outlot and these folks are using that to determine some sort of an average density
and like I'm saying, there's some funny numbers going on there and we don't like that.
Okay. So and then I just want to move on. The staff report actually speaks to that problem
on page 2. The folks say that the two outlots shown on the plan contain the existing
businesses and residence. These outlots must be shown as lots. Allowing the outlots to
remain will create a non - conforming situation. I appreciate staff pointing that out. Septic
systems on a nursery, in Resource Engineering's report they've, I want to just, I know we all
got this report probably on Monday. Maybe some other people had it on Friday. I want to
point out some things. In Lake Riley Woods we are held to very strict standards on these
septic systems. As a matter of fact, some of us made the mistake of planting some trees not
right on the septic systems but near enough to septic systems where we raised some eyebrows
with the inspectors. And we had to move our trees, some trees as small, we had to move
some trees one foot in order to comply with the city ordinances. And so we appreciate the
strict controls that Steve and his people have on those septic systems. I heard Mr. Anderson
talk a little while ago and kind of pooh pooh some of Resource Engineering's report saying
well this is all in there and we've got information that says these septic systems will work
and what not. But Resource Recoveries got a couple good comments in here. On page 2 of
13 they say, there is adequate area for individual on site sewage treatment systems as
presented on the proposed plat. There are other factors which are equally important leading
to the conclusion that none of the lots as presented in the proposed plat are suitable. This is
in their initial summary. Summary and introduction part. On page 9 of 13, they talk about
the operations that the nursery had and they say the operation of the nursery may have much
more concentrated and machinery travel than a farm field would cross it such as corn,
soybean, hay, etc. are grown and harvested. If the soil profiles at a depth of 1 or 2 feet has
been ... or removed, that location is likely not suitable for installation of a sewage treatment
27
u
1
J
11
L�
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
mound. Areas where original soil have been removed and replaced by tree transplanting
activities likely will not be suitable for the installation of a sewage treatment mound. And
they had another comment that, and I don't know whether Halla does this or not but where a
nursery operation can ... soil to a 3 foot depth to prune the roots of the trees, and they talked
about that as creating a channel for the movement of soil water which isn't acceptable and
again I want to point out that when we had to establish the locations for our mounds and our
lots, the city was absolutely adamant that that land was virgin land. It's never been touched
and to this day we can't plant, by ordinance, any trees or anything else on a secondary
sewage systems that have been planted and that's a tough deal to live by when you have a lot
out there and you're trying to shield yourself from Pioneer Trail and Highway 101 and some
of the other areas that are really clogging themselves up with traffic. It seems as though that
Halla has a history of ignoring some simple environmental conservation rules. Here on page
6 staff talks about Halla putting, and if the staff was familiar with this drainage basin.
Apparently on the east side there's a drainage basin. In past dealings with the applicant in
securing a grading permit to fill in a portion of the downstream ravine, it appears the
applicant has been filling this ravine without the appropriate permit and with unacceptable
materials such as landscaping debris and other materials that will settle over time and create
erosion and shear failures on the bluff. That's kind of damaging to Mother Earth and I guess
we're kind of surprised that a business such as Halla would engage in such a practice.
There's another disturbing thing on page 11 where it talks about these folks haven't been,
they haven't been cooperating with some of the city staff. Attempts to evaluate the proposed
plat clearly have been made but the applicant's failure to work with the City ISTS evaluator
makes thorough evaluation impossible at this time. You know, and I've heard what Mr.
Anderson said. Who is Paul Krauss? What's his position?
Scott: Well he was the Planning Director.
David Gatto: Oh, so he's gone now?
Scott: Correct.
David Gatto: That's good. Because I was going to write a letter to the Mayor tomorrow. I
think it's absolutely outrageous what he asked these people to do and if he made that dense
development on the west side of Highway 101, I'm going to, well he's gone but I think that's
absolutely outrageous that he told these folks to do that dense development. That had total
disregard for what all the other homeowners wanted in the area. That would have been, I
don't know how many other people you would have here but I mean you can see how
interested we are when there's just the 2.04 acres. I suspect that in listening to what Mr.
Anderson was saying about all the reports and the hoops that he's had to jump through, that
maybe this comment is because that happened. Also I haven't seen any comments in here
Planning ommission Meeting - August 3, 1994
g g g
with regards to any kind of traffic studies or traffic impacts that may take place on Highway
101 and Pioneer Trail. I know that in the morning especially when everybody in our
development has to turn east on Pioneer Trail, it's quite a chore because all the cars will stop
at the stop light on Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail and I don't know what they're doing but '
it's really quite a chore to turn east there. If they were to keep that one road that's across
from our association not aligned the way they have it, I think that will complicate the
situation. So we appreciate the comment, if they do a development at all, to align their road ,
with Foxford Road. I think that's a real necessary thing but in addition, I'm surprised there's
no comments about a traffic study or impact in here. We think that we see in here that the
applicant has provided $1,000.00 in escrow to pay for Resource Engineering and this process ,
has gone on since '87. Not only with the city but Resource Engineering and I guess we'd
like to know how much Resource Engineering has cost the city now and how much additional
it may cost the city and maybe the applicant should be asked to pay additional funds if more ,
studies are required. We would like the City Attorney to look into this outlot business. It
doesn't seem to be a valid use, as Nancy said, that an outlot can be used as a commercial
business in a residential area. That's kind of odd. It's clear additional exploration is needed '
to determine the suitability of the land for septic systems and again, just in summary, the
Planning Commission should really table this issue while we clear up what this minimum 2
1/2 acre per lot business and get these funny numbers all out of the way. Again, we're not '
opposed to development but we really would like to see that the 2 1/2 acre minimum per lot
upheld here. Thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes ma'am.
Deborah Graffunder: Hi. My name is Deborah Graffunder and I am the property owner that ,
is directly east of Halla Nursery.
Scott: Could you give us your street address too please? ,
Deborah Graffunder: Sure. 10001 Great Plains Blvd. I've lived across from the nursery for
15 years. It's my property where TH 101 has a sharp turn. I'm feeling, I wish my husband ,
was here tonight. He's in Canada fishing and I can't even contact him but bear with me.
Mancino: Excuse me, could you show us where you live? '
Scott: Just point it out. I
Deborah Graffunder: That's my property. We purchased the home 15 years ago...privacy
and the space—extensively landscaped our home and our gardens. It's quite lovely. It's quite '
park like. I have a big concern here. I've heard Don make reference as to this is his
29 1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
retirement. Well this is our home. We plan on staying there another 5 years. All of our
three boys have been born and raised there and I'm concerned that TH 101 is going to go
through part of my property or this private road is my road. It is on our property. There are
3 property owners. My husband and myself for the first stretch of the road. The next stretch,
David Teich which farms his 5 acres next to us. And ... property owner. The Halla nursery
has an easement to use the road. I again don't mind having development either. I would
actually rather have some nice 2 1/2 acre home sites be there rather than living with the
' nursery and all that. I'm tired of the big trucks going down the road and the loud speaker.
You know I mean I just am. I just am. And so I'm not here to say I don't want this
' development. Actually I wouldn't want mind it at all as long as it's done very tastefully.
Lake Riley Woods is gorgeous. We wanted to move over there but we'd lose some of our
privacy and such. I dust want to maintain my property and not have a public street bulldozed
by I think 70 some huge, gigantic Norway pines in front of my home that I've babied for 15
years. Clipped around and ... I just had to get up here and say you know, who I am and my
situation. I guess that's it.
Scott: Thank you very much. Anybody else like to speak? Yes ma'am.
' Jan Sabinsky: My name is Jan Sabinsky and my husband Jim and I live on 775 Creekwood.
And I just wanted to take this opportunity also to list some of the issues we have regarding
the proposed Halla addition. We too are not against the development if it's done in the
proper way and if the lot size is at least 2.5 acres. But we have some other concerns and we
would just like those to be stated here tonight so that the Planning Commission can take them
into consideration. We would like to leave the street named Creekwood that we live on.
Since we've moved there about 21 years ago we've changed our address, or they've changed
the address on us about 4 times and we don't, we're tired of...all the people that send us mail,
that our address is being changed again. We would not like you to issue the building permits
until the roads and streets are done. No construction traffic on Creekwood. I don't know if
you know the size of the Creekwood street but it's only about 20 feet wide. And there have
been big trucks that have made the wrong turn on that road. There have been other
construction trucks on that road and that road isn't meant to take that kind of traffic. We
would not like to have any more out traffic on Creekwood. The Creekwood going out onto
TH 101 is very dangerous. Every morning any given person that comes off Mandan or
Creekwood could get hit. It's very difficult to see towards your left when you're coming out
because of that hill. The paving of Creekwood was paid primarily by the homeowners. Halla
paid only for 3 lots. And if he's going to be putting some more property on there, I would
like to see the other property owners get some refund on that. As I said before, Creekwood
is only 20 feet wide. It's too narrow for any hook and ladder fire trucks, if there should be
' any fires. The water runoff from Creekwood goes into the ravine. Halla's have a pond
across the road from us and I believe it goes under Creekwood into the ravine. The traffic is
30
71
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 1
backed up on County Road 14. You mentioned the traffic in the morning and you can't get
out onto CR 14. When we come home between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., that traffic is backed up
for at least a mile. Or more sometimes. I too have a concern about the intercom system.
The intercom system is on at 7:00 a.m. every morning and is on until 10:00 p.m. or later.
They play music on the intercom system, which I don't appreciate. They have on occasion '
run Bobcats right outside of our property from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 or later. They have
some noisy peacocks that screech like a cat who's got their tail caught in a vice. It's very
annoying. Lack of fire station or equipment on the south side of Chanhassen for the size ,
houses that are being proposed. I understand that if there were any fires there, that they
would bring a fire truck with water tanks on them. And we don't believe that for those size
houses that are being proposed, that that's going to be adequate. There are no parks or place '
for neighborhood children to walk or ride bikes on that narrow Creekwood street. A lot of us
walk on that road and it's very, very dangerous from the traffic from the golf course. I know
that's not Don's issue there but that road is, you can't have two way traffic on that street.
The commercial property, we're concerned, is mixed up with the residential area. I can't
believe that that's allowable. I mean to have that size of a commercial property and built up
all around with houses. They're going to back right up onto that property. I wouldn't want
to buy a house there. Concern about the chemicals that have been used by Halla running off
into the neighborhood wells. There are noxious weeds growing along the wildflowers on both
sides of Creekwood and the ravine area. I mean there's thistles and who knows what other ,
kinds of weeds growing there. We would like to see Creekwood closed from TH 101 and
make a new access on the south side of Halla's new shed. Why weren't the homeowners
notified of the change in plans for only 3 houses previously planned for coming onto
Creekwood? There have been several references to the park issue. I saw a sign on the staff
report that a little area that was indicated to say that it was a park. Is there anything more
that you can tell us about the park issue? Is there going to be some property designated for
parks, or a park?
Al -Jaff: The Park and Recreation Commission will be meeting on Tuesday to discuss this '
specific issue.
Jan Sabinsky: Okay, Tuesday when?
Al -Jaff: August 9th. I'm sorry, tomorrow. No, this August 9th. Tuesday, yes. I
Jan Sabinsky: Here at 7:30?
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Jan Sabinsky: Okay. And then is there any update on the plans for the golf course to '
31 1
u
r
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
develop? We haven't heard anything about that. I know that might impact the development
and the current people that live in that area right now. Oh, okay. So you don't know what
they're planning on? No word whether they're going to do anything with that property? Sell
it or keep it or, okay. Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Okay.
David Gatto: Yeah Joe. You know I represent a lot of the people that are here.
Scott: Can you step up to the microphone so we can get it on the public record.
David Gatto: Joe, once again, I'm representing an association of Lake Riley Woods
homeowners and a lot of those people are the people that are out here in the audience and we
just wanted one speaker.
David Gatto: So if you look around and people aren't saying anything.
Scott: We appreciate that.
Scott: Yeah, we appreciate that.
David Gatto: And if I didn't say enough for anybody, but go ahead.
Scott: Well we appreciate that. It's important that we get citizen comment and we
obviously hear from applicants. We like to hear from citizens and it's especially appreciated
when it makes sense to have people speak on behalf of an association. Obviously people may
or may not be within an association that are always welcome to come in. I'd like to thank
you all for doing that. If there's no one else who would like to speak.
Roger Anderson: Could I briefly summarize for the applicant?
Scott: No. No. No. Please sit. Could I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Comments, Jeff.
Farmakes: I had some concerns about the drainfields and ... seemed a little open ended to me.
I'd like to see those closed up.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 1
Audience: Could you use the loudspeaker, we can't hear you.
Farmakes: Can you hear me? '
Audience: No. I
Scott: You're as loud as it can go? Okay.
Farmakes: I'll just try to speak louder. I'm not quite certain, as I understand it, the 2 1/2
acres is the average, correct? That's the way it's works. Maybe that could be explained or
that, you're referring to them as funny numbers. Sometimes they do appear to be funny
numbers but the way that the ordinances are set up and the way that the situation with the
development of the city between the applicant and the city, they use a formula.
David Gatto: Jeff , I read the ordinance... '
a
Scott: Excuse me. The public hearing is closed.
David Gatto: Well then the City Attorney ought to speak to it because the city ordinance
says minimum 2 1/2 acres per lot. I read it the day before yesterday. '
Farmakes: That's correct but as I understand, there's also a commitment to the city and the '
applicant. Is that correct? Perhaps what I'm saying is, perhaps you should discuss that with
city staff so that you're understanding of that also.
David Gatto: Well city staff also explained their extension expired 5 years after 1987... '
Scott: Excuse me, the public hearing is closed. I
David Gatto: I understand but your commissioner is addressing me Chairman.
Farmakes: I'm not expecting a response. I'm just making a suggestion that you and the city '
are comfortable with the information that you have.
David Gatto: I'm not comfortable. '
Farmakes: Okay. Getting back to the drainfields, I'm still uncomfortable with that report. It '
didn't seem inclusive to me. There's a lot of things that this development seems to be still
left out to interpretation or subject to taking out. I'm not sure if there's that much concern
about the issues of 2 1/2 acres or 2.2 or 2.4 or so I'm not sure how that formulation works '
33 1
' Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
out and when they come up with it. They have a very large lot and then of course it adds to
' these smaller lots that ... and we've been through that before on a lot of these different
developments. I'm not sure on the TH 101, I believe that the State will determine how that
lays out Do we not make a suggestion on how we would like to see it? MnDot makes that
' decision. Is that how that works?
Scott: I think you can talk about the special status of Highway 101, again.
Mancino: And who pays for it and.
' Scott: Yeah, and how that works.
' Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Trunk Highway 101 is classified
as ... the applicant and /or city to petition MnDot to provide the funding for safety
improvements ... we've done similar improvements along TH 101 north of Highway 5 where
' we have added on turn lanes. Right turn lanes on Cheyenne and Pleasant View. Those types
of intersections. MnDot does fund those 100 %. The problem that, and so you're looking at a
minimum of 2 years out right now for MnDot to consider that. They get all these requests
' from different communities for safety improvements on the trunk highways. Throw them in a
kitty. Prioritize them based on safety and let each community know each year which qualify
and which don't. Right now ... minimum of 2 years out.
' Scott: Okay, and those we have already petitioned MnDot for those improvements?
Hempel: No, we have not.
Scott: Okay. So that's something that perhaps we would want to do? Soon.
Hempel: ...appropriate with the plat approval.
Scott: Okay. So that's, okay.
Farmakes: I'll pass it on...
Scott: Nancy.
Mancino: I have a few questions and I may need to come back too. I guess I have some
questions about, this is for Sharmin. When we are doing a subdivision around a retail
commercial area.
34
L
35 '
'
Planning Co g August 3, 1994 g
Commission Meeting - Au
Audience: Excuse me ... talk louder.
'
Mancino: you ou hear me?
Audience: No.
'
Mancino: Can you hear me? I feel like I'm screaming. Okay. When you, Halla has grown.
It has a new building this year. Now I'm not saying it hasn't grown in acreage but it has
'
upgraded it's building. It is doing a good retail business. And then we put a subdivision
around it. Lots of people who want to live in their homes and they want it to be quiet, as
we've all heard tonight. How do those two go together in the future? I mean we're talking
about, we've heard about outdoor speakers going on at 10:00 at night. We hear about 7:00 in
the morning and I've heard the music there because I was over visiting and actually took a
ride through the property. And it's not classical ... or anything. I mean it's pretty hip music.
'
Don't we, I mean we're going to get citizens in. We're going to get homeowners. We're
going to get people just like you and me in here all the time asking or requesting some sort
'
of a limitation on hours. And does that need to be part of this or.
Aanenson: ...the nursery was there first. They're a grandfathered in here. If people want to
'
buy ... they have been grandfathered in.
Mancino: But are these hours grandfathered in? I mean we have asked other commercial
,
areas. I'm thinking about the one that was here earlier, Admiral Waste. We have them hours
from Monday thru Friday.
Aanenson: They asked for an interim use permit so we have control over...
Mancino: So does a grandfathered use mean that you can have any hours anytime?
'
Aanenson: They're limited to what they had when they were established.
'
Mancino: So what is that?
Aanenson: We're trying to determine some of that right now.
'
Scott: But then there's also noise ordinances and that sort of thing.
'
Mancino: Well I think it would be wise for Halla to work with the homeowners around and
establish some sort of, and have it written down and have it in the covenants so that people
know what it will be and get that straighten out before because I can see this becoming a
'
35 '
J
J
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
bigger problem. Dave, I have a question for you about the Block 6. This is between Block 4
and Block 6 there is a future road in that southeast corner that abuts the bluff. And I know
that this isn't final roadway. You know exactly where it will go but I just wanted to share
my concern with where that roadway goes to the southern property which says future
development. It seems to cut into the bluff area. And I would like that to be studied and
made sure of the grading so that we keep, I think we have a new ordinance that says what, 40
feet away from top of the bluff.
Hempel: He's going to take a look at that. It does appear to encroach on the...
' Mancino: So I'd like that added to our recommendations. Secondly Dave, how are we going
to be accessing in the future, and I see staff's concerns, the property to the south of Block 4.
I understand that future road going to the future development which leads to this but coming
' a little more west but still east of TH 101 we have those 3 property owners and part of that
question is, their easement goes out to TH 101, is there room between the new Halla Nursery
Vista Road on TH 101 and the easement that these people live off of? And is there enough
' distance between the two? Is there 300 feet? Doesn't it have to be 300 feet?
Hempel: It appears based on this drawing that there is the 300 foot separation on the access
point. MnDot does have control on accesses onto trunk highways... jurisdiction to grant this
access ... and that's why, if I could back up to your first concern with access to the property
south of Block 4 and south of that private driveway, that's where in the staff report we
thought it was prudent to make use of the current road alignment. That it's better to expand
on it to serve properties to the south as well as the subdivision for Halla. The plat
configuration on the east side can very easily be rearranged to accommodate this and to just
circle... We'd be happy to look at the applicant to demonstrate—that access that private road...
We have received numerous complaints as far as maintenance goes on that road. It's kind of
a ... not even a city road.
Mancino: Well I agree with that recommendation. I think that has to be looked at. And I do
support keeping that slope for the conservation easement and allowing no penetration into
there without a lot of grading. I think that is the one area and it is the only area that we're
asking to keep in it's natural state with the trees there. Sharmin, are we applying the tree
preservation ordinance on this? I mean what percentage needs to be?
Al -Jaff: ...landscaping plan has not been submitted with the application and that is one of the
conditions of approval.
Mancino: Thank you. Again I'd like to thank staff for a very, very comprehensive report
and good recommendations. Thank you.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: Okay, following up on the outlot situation. You mentioned that there are two
outlots I believe in the report. But I don't see, I only see Oudot A as identified. Is this area
identified future development in the southeast corner of the parcel, is that considered Outlot
B?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Ledvina: Is that right? Am I misreading that or is that labeled on the plan? Or I didn't find
it.
Al -Jaff: ...as an outlot and we're recommending that it be...
Ledvina: Okay, so.
Don Halla: I don't own that property.
Scott: Excuse me. The public hearing is closed.
Ledvina: So that's not part of the plat?
Don Halla: No.
Ledvina: It's not part of the plat. Future development.
Scott: Could you direct that question to staff please?
Al -Jaff: It was ... part of the plat...
Ledvina: I thought it was part of the plat too. It's indicated here on our drawings as part of
the plat. So it's not part of the plat?
Al -Jaff: Well the 102 acres includes that piece of property.
Ledvina: Okay. And they don't own it and it's not part of the plat.
Scott: Well then has it been used in the density calculations? ...okay, wait a second.
Ledvina: But there's an error in the density calculations then if that's not part of the plan.
37
I Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: They don't own it and it's not part of the plat yet it was used to calculate density?
1 Al -Jaff: Correct.
Scott: Correct, okay.
Ledvina: Going onto the southeast corner of the development. There's a small area. It's
' about, a little more than 2 acres. What is that area? It's not identified as a lot but it's
identified within the plat.
1
Al -Jaff: I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question.
Ledvina: The area in the very southwest corner of the parcel. It's not identified as a lot yet,
what is that?
Al -Jaff: There's an existing single family home.
Ledvina: Okay. Is the ... to identify that as part of that in terms of the Block and Lot numbers
and such?
Al -Jaff: It is part of the overall plat. It was approved on July 9th, 1989. This parcel right
here.
Ledvina: Alright. It wasn't clear to me what was on there. The, I'm going to jump around a
little bit but the situation with Creekwood. I know for one of the residents that spoke, one of
the staff recommendations is that the name of Creekwood remain the same so we're tracking
with the residents on that. The situation with the widening of Creekwood, is that going to be
required as part of this development? Where we are bringing more traffic out into that area.
How are we dealing with that?
Hempel: As with this staff report now we did not recommend upgrading of Creekwood.
...last week it appears to be about 22 feet wide and a normal rural street is 24 feet wide
which would be the streets built within the Halla plat... There are grading and those type of
issues that would be ... with the plat.
Scott: But isn't the majority of the traffic, at least during the summer months, has to do with
Bluff Creek and not with any residents? The golf course. That's the access to Bluff Creek.
So adding 3 more homes is probably not going to change, I mean in the winter it will have a
slight impact but during the summer, it probably won't.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
i
Hempel: ...probably add 8 more homes.
Ledvina: Yeah, 8 homes. All of Block 2. Actually Block 1 and Block 2. So essentially '
your view of the situation though is that the existing situation is adequate in terms of the
width of the pavement. You did mention that there will be some grading and drainage '
improvements on the north side of that road?
Hempel: That's correct ... but we have not proposed to do widening or improving... what's ,
there. ...an improvement at the intersection of Trunk Highway 101.
Ledvina: Okay. I had a question in the staff report and maybe I didn't read this properly but
it seems to say that if Outlot A is platted as a lot, they would not have access to TH 101.
Now I've got to maybe go back to the staff report and maybe if I could point this out.
Maybe I'm just not interpreting this correctly. Page 7 on the bottom of the last full
paragraph. It says since no further access will be allowed off of Trunk Highway 101,
provisions for looping two street systems through Outlot A from Golfview Circle or Golfview
Court should be explored by the applicant. Does that mean that you're closing the access to '
TH 101 from Outlot A?
Hempel: The intent there was to provide a looped street in the future when you subdivide the '
nursery by itself. Maybe 10 years down the road if they ever decided to replat.
Scott: Well that's not going to affect their ability to do business or anything like that. I
Hempel: Not at this time, no. I
Ledvina: Okay. Well I noted that that was one of your ideas in terms of the future
development but it wasn't identified as a condition. Do you think it's appropriate as a '
condition? As it relates to future development. Maybe MnDot would take care of that by
their review of any future development in saying that you've got on here. You've got one
here. There's no way you can, you know everything's going to have to be internal after that. '
But is there something that we should do here?
Hempel: I believe condition number 27 on page 18. '
Ledvina: Okay, there it is. I guess through Outlot A. Maybe you should make it a little
more emphatic in terms of the no further access will be allowed off of TH 101. I think that '
really gets to the point of what we're trying to say right there, right? I mean you're saying
that it can loop through there but you're not saying that you can't have the outlot.
39 1
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Hempel: That's what we're predicting...
Ledvina: I know that's what you mean in the condition but maybe it can be a lot clearer. A
little more clear. Now I'm a little bit unclear as to being on the road issue. TH 101 itself,
where that hairpin curve is. What's shown on the plat is essentially a straightening of that
curve. Now, and you seem to indicate that the city has right -of -way now for that
improvement of that curve. What's the situation there?
Hempel: That's correct. The previous plat submitted back in '89, the city did require that
the applicant dedicate future road right -of -way for the upgrade of TH 101. 120 foot wide
strip of land. That has been dedicated.
Ledvina: That's from the property owner from the east?
Hempel: That's from the Halla's. From the property... plat has not been dedicated yet.
Ledvina: So half of that. Half of that area is dedicated.
Hempel: Right, the north half through the proposed plat.
Ledvina: Alright, okay. And when would that upgrade occur? I mean if you could look into
your crystal ball, is that 10 years? 5 years? What are you saying?
Hempel: It depends on the... development pressure. As traffic increases with development.
Ledvina: Is this going to be another one of those safety kind of things? Because this looks
like a more serious alignment issue.
Hempel: That's correct. This was not going to be...
Ledvina: Okay. The system for, the situation with the individual soil treatment systems, the
information that's provided in the staff report certainly leads one to believe that there's a lot
of work to be done here. And it's kind of a catch -22 scenario with the developer and I
understand that because he's got to spend the money to go out and do the soil borings and all
the evaluations but then he's got to go back and then set the property lines and it's kind of a
back and forth process and if those don't quite work, you know he ends up going back out in
the field again. But I think, and I know that's a bad situation but I think this isn't your
normal site in terms of that scenario. Or a normal scenario for siting septic systems. You
have all the pre - existing uses here that have disturbed the soils. Poor soils generally to start
out with, as I understand. And I guess I know we have in the conditions, condition number 8
40
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 '
Ledvina: I might have misread my map but. I
Hempel: Actually... down here...
Ledvina: Do I have that map? Is it an 8 1/2 x 11 map? '
Hempel: Yes. '
41 1
essentially covers the requirements here. I think, I don't know. Do we have essentially 5
conditions but I guess the last situation is if you've got a platted lot and you can't find the
,
septic site on it, do you just go ahead and say, all of a sudden the lot is, or not all of a
sudden but you say that the lot is unbuildable.
Aanenson: We don't give preliminary plat approval. We never give final plat approval until
'
all these conditions are demonstrated to our satisfaction. So what we're, the position that
we're saying is that yes, there's a lot of conditions. There's a lot of work to do. What we're
'
saying, based on the fact that he has done a lot of septic site exploration based on the two
previous... give preliminary plat approval until he demonstrates that he can meet all these
conditions... We wouldn't create a lot unless he can meet...
'
Ledvina: Okay, I didn't know that. I thought this was going to be carried all the way
through until the time when the lot would be.
Aanenson: No, no. And then until these conditions are met, we wouldn't go forward.
That's why there's a lot of conditions.
'
Ledvina: Okay. Just a point of clarification for condition number 22. It says Outlot D. I
think you mean Pond D, is that correct? As it relates, you're talking about the drainage and.
t
Condition number 22, page 17. Fourth condition here.
Hempel: Actually the point of clarification ... I guess, this is the previous plat that was
'
approved back in '89. The development will retain ownership of the piece that's right
adjacent to the ravine where the storm water drains underneath Creekwood. It drains off a
ravine. They would like to acquire or have the applicant dedicate to the city a drainage
'
utility easement sometime in the future when we need to develop a storm sewer system to
resolve that erosion that's occurring down in the ravine...
'
Ledvina: Okay. So this is near Creekwood. It's not by Pond A necessarily?
Hempel: I'll show you on the map.
Ledvina: I might have misread my map but. I
Hempel: Actually... down here...
Ledvina: Do I have that map? Is it an 8 1/2 x 11 map? '
Hempel: Yes. '
41 1
1
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Ledvina: But if it's not identified on our plans here, how do we deal with that?
Hempel: It's still a lot of record...
Ledvina: But if these are our reference documents here.
Hempel: Basically what I'm trying to say is ... runoff or the volume of runoff will increase.
Therefore causing downstream drainage improvements ... eventually constructed.
Ledvina: Yeah, I'm tracking with you. I guess just in terms of the nuts and bolts of this
thing I'm just wondering, because I didn't really take a look at that. I didn't, well I'll let that
go. The situation with Resource Engineering and the reimbursement. Is that reimbursement
to the city, is that a typical thing and should that be done in this case maybe for future
thoughts associated with evaluation of those sites? What's your reaction to that?
Kirchman: We've had Mr. Halla establish an escrow fund and if his escrow fund is depleted
we add additional funds to it to pay for Resources Engineering.
Ledvina: So in the past he has been reimbursing the expenses of Resource Engineering?
Kirchman: That's correct.
Ledvina: Okay. And that's standard operating procedures?
Kirchman: That's correct.
Ledvina: Well I think overall this is a very complicated plat and there's a lot of specific
things that are going on here. It's a very beautiful piece of property and it's going to be a
very nice area to live in certainly for the new residents here. I think that I would like to see
this thing moved forward but in my opinion, at this point, I think we need a little more work
with getting closer on some of these conditions. I'm a little bit uncomfortable in terms of our
calculations and I think many of these things can be resolved.
Scott: Dave, can I put you on the spot for a second? That piece of property that's slated or
identified as future development looks like it's about 450 by I don't know, 600 or something.
If that piece of property is 14 acres, maybe 13 acres. If it's 15 acres, that makes the density
2.3 so I guess in my mind too, I mean that can obviously be changed. They can take out a
couple of lots and make some of them larger to meet it but as this stands right now, just from
my rough mathematics, it doesn't meet the density requirement. But I mean that's, once
again, that's something that can be changed. But can I have a motion please?
42
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Ledvina: I would move that we table the preliminary plat, Case # 86 -31 SUB to subdivide
102.73 acres into 36 rural single family lots and two outlots, Great Plains Golf Estates. ,
Scott: Is there a second? Would you like to second that? Okay, I'll second that motion. Is
there any discussion? ,
Mancino: Yeah, I think my discussion would be that we send it on with our various
recommendations and if for any reason it does not meet the individual sewer, septic, that it '
will come back because it will have to be redrawn. The plat will have to be redrawn so that
those mounds can be installed and will be here. If there's any significant changes, it will
come back in front of the Planning Commission. '
Farmakes: I agree. I think the conditions cover the open ended parts with preliminary. I
think it gives staff the idea what information we're looking for I guess when it comes back as '
a final plat.
Ledvina: Well I initially thought that when I was looking at this and I know that staff has
worked hard in developing these conditions. I don't think that's unreasonable. I guess I
would withdraw my motion at this time. '
Scott: Okay. Can I have a new motion please?
Mancino: I move, with a little support from others, I move that the Planning Commission '
approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #86 -31 for Great Plains Golf Estates as shown
on the plans dated June 6, 1994 subject to the following conditions. As is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, '
a, b, c, 8, a, b, c, d, e, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, a, b, c, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33. And I'd like to add condition 34. That staff and applicant
work together to make sure that the future road in the southeast corner of the plat not infringe '
on the bluff. That it adheres the new bluff ordinance. Number 35. Recommendation that the
1 unit per 2.5 acre is based on the actual land to be platted. Specifically does not include the
future development area which is not owned by Don Halla. And have I missed anything? '
Ledvina: A friendly amendment?
Mancino: Yes. '
Ledvina: I would like to amend condition number 27 to indicate that, to add that for future ,
development of currently identified Outlot A, there shall be no additional access granted for
Trunk Highway 101.
43 '
L
J
I
Fj
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: Do you accept that?
Mancino: I do. And I would like to add another recommendation. 37, that the retail
commercial area have covenants with the proposed new landowners and it tells the opening
and closing times so that people up front know when the opening and closing times is of the
retail commercial area. What days of the week. The hours. What kind of activity will go on
and if those are changed, it has to meet the approval of the landowners in the subdivision.
Scott: Especially with the loudspeaker and equipment operation. Okay. It's been moved and
seconded that we act on the motion. Is there any discussion? Any additional discussion. All
those in favor of the motion.
Ledvina: Excuse me Mr. Chairman. I don't know that, did we second the motion?
Mancino: I don't know.
Farmakes: I'll second the motion.
Scott: Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #86 -31 for Great Plains Golf Estates as
shown on the plans dated June 6, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the
city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or
greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
2. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on
the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size.
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 shall provide a plan which shows the location of
the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description.
3. Lot 4, 5, 7, and 8 Block 3, shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation
plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to
require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 ,
e of the tree ,
A snow fence shall be placed along the edge reservation easement prior to p
grading. '
4. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be designed; shown on site plan;
and, approved by the Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department. ,
5. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with Chanhassen
Engineering and Fire Department approved provisions for the turning around of fire
apparatus. '
6. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads '
of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all- weather driving
capabilities. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings. This
applies to homes which are in excess of 150 feet of State Hwy 101. '
7. Street names:
a. Maple Court is not acceptable. The City already has 5 streets with "Maple" in the '
name.
b. The street between Hwy. 101 and County Road 14 is named both Birch Drive and '
Halla Nursery Vista. The street must have only one name. Eliminate Halla Vista
Drive.
c. Rename "Golf View Circle." Submit alternative name. '
8. Building Department conditions: '
a. Use Carver County licensed septic site evaluator.
f borings done on each proposed '
b. Submit boring logs o osed ISTS site with a unique g P P
identification for each to Inspections Division. '
c. Stake and identify proposed property lines, proposed ISTS sites and perc and boring
locations. '
d. Provide a preliminary evaluation report on the ISTS sites from Resource Engineering.
e. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show standard dwelling type designations for
proposed house pads.
45 1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
9. The applicant will need to provide revised detailed storm calculations for 10 and 100 -year
' storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality and quantity ponds
in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall retain on site the predeveloped runoff rate as
well as provided interim water quality and quantity ponds. The applicant shall provide
detailed pre - developed and post - developed storm water calculations for existing and
proposed storm water basins. In addition, water quality pond design calculations shall be
based on Walker's pondnet model.
10. The streets shall be constructed to the City's rural street section. Detailed construction
' plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City
Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans shall be
designed in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail
plates.
11. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
' necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
with final plat conditions of approval.
' 12. The applicant shall meet wetland fill and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in the
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior
to or concurrent with wetland fill activity or excavation in future phases of the project.
' 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate re ulator
PP PP Y P regulatory
' agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army
Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply
with their conditions of approval.
14. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for
all storm water drainageways and ponding areas lying outside the street right -of -ways.
The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be
given for access for maintenance of the storm water ponding areas. Outlot A shall be
platted as a lot and block.
15. The applicant's engineer shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be
' submitted to the City for review and formal approval.
16. The grading plan shall be revised to relocate all berming outside street or trunk
' highway right -of -ways. The berm shall be limited to 4 feet high with 3:1 slopes along
46
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 '
purposes.
18. The outlet from the existing pond behind the nursery shall be re- routed and directed
through Pond "B."
19. Existin g wells and septic systems on the site which are not to be utilized shall be '
properly abandoned in accordance with City or State codes.
20. PP P
The applicant shall be responsible for the appropriate storm water quality and quantity '
fees based in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The
requirement for cash fees in lieu of land or permanent pond construction shall be ,
based upon the schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
21. 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. ,
22. The developer shall convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for
future construction of storm drainage infrastructures over Outlot D, Great Plains Golf '
Estates.
23. Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the '
plat has been revised to accommodate staff' changes in the plat's street and lot
configuration. The developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with
revised detailed storm sewer drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm '
drainage system on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat.
24. The applicant shall modify the plans and incorporate the following safety ,
improvements:
a. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery '
47 '
Trunk Highway 101 right -of -ways. In addition, the grading plan shall show all
proposed grading as a result of drainage improvements, street and house construction.
The applicant's engineer shall work with staff in developing a revised storm drainage
plan to accommodate plat revisions.
17. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands
shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100 -year high water level. All storm
water ponds shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water
'
level and no more than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety
purposes.
18. The outlet from the existing pond behind the nursery shall be re- routed and directed
through Pond "B."
19. Existin g wells and septic systems on the site which are not to be utilized shall be '
properly abandoned in accordance with City or State codes.
20. PP P
The applicant shall be responsible for the appropriate storm water quality and quantity '
fees based in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The
requirement for cash fees in lieu of land or permanent pond construction shall be ,
based upon the schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
21. 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. ,
22. The developer shall convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for
future construction of storm drainage infrastructures over Outlot D, Great Plains Golf '
Estates.
23. Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the '
plat has been revised to accommodate staff' changes in the plat's street and lot
configuration. The developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with
revised detailed storm sewer drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm '
drainage system on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat.
24. The applicant shall modify the plans and incorporate the following safety ,
improvements:
a. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery '
47 '
J
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant is also
proposing to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff
recommends that the existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to
improve sight lines and berming be restricted to a rmmmum of 4 feet in height.
' b. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive
shall be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet
MnDOT standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
c. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose
' sight distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented by the
applicant's engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the posted
speeds.
' 25. The applicant shall be required to re- excavate all unacceptable materials in the ravine
on Lot 3, Block 6 and backfill with engineered fill as well as replace the existing
' storm drainage pipe (24 -inch CMP) with concrete pipe.
26. The applicant's engineer should redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D ") to
' accommodate the existing significant trees that are alive yet.
27. The applicant shall provide for the future looping of the two street systems through
' Outlot A from Golfview Circle or Golfview Court. Outlot A shall have no
additional access granted for TH 101.
' 28. Halla Nursery Vista road east of Trunk Highway 101 should be realigned to follow the
private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road.
' 29. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County that
appropriate right -of -way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one -half of
t the minimum 100 -foot wide corridor for County Road 14.
30. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from
' County Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
31. The applicant shall revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be continuous with Foxford
' Road at the intersection of County Road 14.
32. The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 '
All voted in favor and the motion carried. I
Scott: Any people who are here tonight, please follow your issue. You'll have the
opportunity to express your concerns, ideas, comments to the City Council. And once again, '
this is not final approval of the project at all. This is the first phase. Basically what it does
is it gives the developers a little bit more certainty that the project is moving ahead so they
can then invest additional dollars to answer some of the additional questions that we have. ,
Thank you all very much for coming.
49 ,
rl
33. Outlot A is currently used as the nursery business and should be platted into a lot and
block. The final plat should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show
Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains
Golfview Estates.
34. That staff and applicant work together to make sure that the future road in the
'
southeast corner of the plat not infringe on the bluff. That it adheres the new
bluff ordinance.
,
35. The 1 unit per 2.5 acre is based on the actual land to be platted. Specifically
does not include the future development area which is not owned by Don Halla.
,
36. Covenants be provided for the new property owners informing of the days and
hours of operation of the retail commercial site and if any changes are made to
'
those hours and days, that the property owners be informed of such changes.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. I
Scott: Any people who are here tonight, please follow your issue. You'll have the
opportunity to express your concerns, ideas, comments to the City Council. And once again, '
this is not final approval of the project at all. This is the first phase. Basically what it does
is it gives the developers a little bit more certainty that the project is moving ahead so they
can then invest additional dollars to answer some of the additional questions that we have. ,
Thank you all very much for coming.
49 ,
rl
,tee n�� Lo�'eGri orb
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, August 3, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
' 690 Coulter Drive
Project: Don Halla's Great Plains
Golf Estates
-- -
•w. T.R
r �
4 y 2
POND
R 1; RR
.PUFF 1
Developer: Don Halla 41?K 1 , L)
a OU
Location: East of Hwy. 101 and South
of Pioneer Trail L ,�•d -J
� Sef
t
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 46.5 acres into 36 rural
single family lots and one outlot, Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates, located south of County
Road 14 (Pioneer Trail), and west and east of Highway 101 (Great Plains Blvd.).
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 Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937 -1900, ext. 120. If
you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning
D artm tit in advance of the meetin Staff will rovide co ies to the Commission
i
s
f ,E
ti
%' F a g, p p
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 21, 1994.
fp.
PAUL ZAKARIASEN
600 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JAMES CHURCH
611 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
KYLE L. COLVIN
701 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHUCK E. WORM
760 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CLIFFORD SIMONS
601 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RONALD LANDIN
710 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MARK HALLA
770 CREEKWOOD
Chaska, MN 55318
STEPHEN WILKER
621 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WESLEY DUNSMORE
730 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
GARY E. ANDERSON
725 CREEKWOOD
Chaska, MN 55318
DALE GUNDERSON
845 CREEKWOOD
Chaska, MN 55318
ROLLIN FAHNING
720 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DON HALLA
670 CREEKWOOD
CHASKA, MN 55318
KEN PUNG
620 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WILLIAM HEINLEIN
721 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
C.A. VOGEL
815 CREEKWOOD
Chaska, MN 55318
JIM AND TERI BYRNE
700 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
THEODORE HASSE ,
630 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
GARY BENDZICK
731 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
'
,
SPENCER L. BOYNTON
777 Creekwood
Chaska, MN 55318 1
RALPH FREUDENBERG
631 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
TIM ERHART
775 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WALTER WARREN
610 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RICHARD DERHAAG
711 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PAUL JEURISSEN
750 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JAMES W SABINSKI
774 CREEKWOOD
Chaska, MN 55318
DANIEL SCHAITBERGER
10241 MANDAN CIRCLE
Chaska, MN 55318
HARRY E NIEMELA
2901 WASHTA BAY ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
DAVID S. JOHNSON
511 LAREDO LANE
PO BOX 492
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JAMES PEDERSEN
10300 MANDAN CIRCLE
Chaska, MN 55318
J
- I
fl
L AVERNE A LYNCH
925 CREEKWOOD
Chaska, MN 55318
ROGER NOVOTNY
18430 HARROGATE DR
I EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
' DAVID R ERICKSON
520 PINEVIEW COURT
' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
David Halla
10095 Great Plains Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318
1
Scott E. Fiedler
#21 Briarwood
3670 Gettysburg Ave. S.
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
GUY RONALD MUNDALE MAGDY EBRAHIM
10260 MANDAN CIRCLE 4617 GRAND AVENUE SO
Chaska, MN 55318 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55409
CHARLES LEFLAR JAMES BECKER
10220 MANDAN CIRCLE 10291 MANDAN CIRCLE
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
CHARLES FRAZER RICHARD ASPLIN
540 PINEVIEW COURT 541 PINEVIEW COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
Boyd Peterson Current Resident
325 Pioneer Trail 305 Pioneer Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeffrey Dypwick Sharon Gatto
10300 Great Plains Blvd. 9631 Foxford Road
Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317