6. Shadow Ridge: Preliminary Plat. I�
IF
CITY OF
li e
CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: 7/6/94
CC DATE: 7/25/94
CASE #: 94 -4 SUB 94 -2 REZ
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat approval to subdivide 15.99 acres of land into 22 single - family
lots; Variance from lot setbacks; and Rezoning from RR, Rural Residential to
RSF, Single Family Residential
LOCATION: 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy Road - A portion of the Southwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 116 North, Range 23 West
APPLICANT: Coffman Development Company
William D. Coffman, Jr., President
117 Sentinel Building, 5151 Edina Industrial Boulevard
Edina, MN 55439
PRESENT ZONING: Rural Residential, RR
ACREAGE: 15.99 acres
DENSITY: gross: 1.37 net: 1.84 (excludes wetlands and right -of -way)
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - RSF, single - family homes
S - RR, vacant across Lake Lucy Road
E - RSF, single - family homes within Curry Farms, subdivision
W - RR, single family homes across Yosemite
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is densely wooded in parts and open in the central portion.
It contains some steep slopes which separate the eastern and western halves of the development as
well as all or part of three wetland areas.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 Units /Ac.)
N
L4
' - -- - ` ,4
li
AAR*
gly'r 1-7
LAKE L!/C),
' _ aJ Y
I•CA
d . � � I 4RA \�
' — /,' K
'Age A## GRE4 R�
if
!ANN
ova
VA
9b
I-AA
—*Ot
7
g®r
■
ZM
-.Wk.
Z5,
C�n
tmr
C ame sys.4,v
7
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994 '
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY I
The applicant is proposing the rezoning of a 15.99 acre parcel of land from RR, Rural
Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential consistent with the land use plan designation of
'
residential - low density, preliminary subdivision approval, and a side yard setback variance
of 10 feet to permit a 10 foot side setback on flag lots (Lots 5, 9 and 10). The proposed
subdivision would create 22 single - family lots at a net density of 1.8 units per acre (excludes
'
right -of -way and wetlands) with an average net lot area of approximately 23,000 square feet.
The applicant is dedicating approximately 2.15 acres for right -of -way including additional
right -of -way for Yosemite and Lake Lucy Road. The site is densely wooded in parts and
'
open in the east - central portion. It contains some steep slopes as well as all or part of three
wetland areas. Severe slopes separate the eastern and western parts of the development, are
in the northeast corner of the development, and are also located around the eastern wetland
'
area. Significant stands of trees are located along the central slope that need to be protected.
To this end, staff is recommending that a 20 foot front setback be permitted on Block 1,
excluding Lots 1 and 17. Staff is also concerned about the severe slopes around the eastern
'
wetlands and encourages the developer to incorporate bluff protection guidelines in the
development.
'
Staff is concerned with the suitability and desirability of providing building pads between the
roads and the wetlands. On Block 2, staff does not believe there is sufficient developable
area to support five lots. The southerly wetland is classified as a natural wetland and as such
'
all efforts should be made to protect and enhance it. The applicant is proposing that the city
accept a zero (0) foot buffer and 40 foot building setback in this area. Code requires a
minimum 10 foot buffer strip and a 40 foot building setback from the wetland. Staff believes
that a 20 or 30 foot buffer strip is more appropriate between the roadway and the wetland and
that the 40 foot building setback should be maintained. Buffer strips are by their very nature
not to be altered and should remain in their natural state. Staff is concerned that there is not
'
sufficient developable area in Block 2 to support five (5) lots. We believe that there is only
sufficient area to provide acceptable building pads for 3 or perhaps 4 homes. Furthermore, '
water and sewer service is not currently available along Yosemite Avenue.
Staff is recommending preliminary plat approval of Shadow Ridge subject to the revisions
and conditions contained in this staff report.
BACKGROUND I
On April 9, 1990, this property was brought into the MUSA by a resolution of the
Chanhassen City Council after a petition by the property owners. The Metropolitan Council '
approved an amendment to the MUSA line on June 14, 1990. This 2000 Land Use Plan
LJ
Coffman Development Company
' Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994
Page 3
amendment permitted these properties to be served by sewer services that were available
adjacent to the property.
WETLANDS
' Three wetlands have been identified on -site and they are described as follows:
Basin 1 is located in the southeastern corner of the site. The wetland extends off -site to the
east; approximately 0.7 acre of wetland is on site. The wetland is classified as a natural
wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance. The basin is best described as a combination of
' an inland deep and shallow fresh meadow with a diversity of species and marginal impacts
due to agricultural and urban development.
' Basin 2 is located just east of Yosemite Avenue along the southern edge of the property. The
wetland is approximately 0.8 acre in size according to the wetland delineation performed by
Svoboda and Associates. The delineation on the west side of the basin is appears to go
' beyond the trail edge. Since the wetland delineation was performed last March, staff
recommends that this edge be re- evaluated now that the wetland parameters (vegetation, soils,
and hydrology) are more apparent. An 18 -inch pipe discharges into this wetland from the
wetland on the west side of Yosemite. The wetland was classified as an ag/urban wetland
during the City inventory, however, this wetland is best classified as a natural wetland under
' the City's Wetland Ordinance. The basin is described as an inland shallow fresh meadow.
The disturbance to this wetland has been due to the construction and existence of Yosemite
Road and the horse trail use nearby, however, there does not appear to be excessive soil
' erosion, sedimentation, or water quality degradation.
Basin 3 is located in the northeastern corner of the site. The wetland is approximately 0.4
' acre in size. The wetland is classified as an ag/urban wetland under the City's Wetland
Ordinance. The basin is described as combination of a seasonally flooded basin and wooded
swamp. Land use disturbance to this wetland is similar to Basin 2, however, this wetland is
' smaller and the degradation appears to be more substantial.
Buffer Strip
' The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average
width of 20 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge
of the buffer strip.
f�
'
Coffman Development Company '
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994 '
Page 4
The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum '
average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the
outside edge of the buffer strip.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP
will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies
the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to
allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. '
In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for
ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality
portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus ,
concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at
each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of
improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus ,
reduction in priority water bodies.
In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require '
the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre - developed and post developed
drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre - developed and post- developed
conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre - developed conditions for '
a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm duration. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2.5 -inch rainfall. In
addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch '
basins will also be required. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water
elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre - developed and post - developed
conditions.
Water Quality I
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash 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 the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 '
per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct the
water quality basin, these fees will be waived.
Water Ou antit ,
y
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
' July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994
' Page 5
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average,
' city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed
SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for
temporary runoff storage. Single- family residential developments will have an assessment rate
of $1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water
quantity assessment fee of $27,720 assuming 14 acres of developable land. The City will
apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements
in accordance with the SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm
sewer pipes, ponding, etc.
' DRAINAGE
The development is located within the Christmas Lake Watershed. The area is divided into
' three natural drainage districts described as follows:
The first drainage district includes the majority of runoff for Block 1. This runoff is
' proposed to be pre - treated to Walker Pondnet standards before it drains into the natural
wetland located in the easterly part of the site. The storm water quality basin is proposed to
be constructed along the western edge of the natural wetland. A natural buffer strip width
' around the entire wetland on -site should range from 10 to 30 feet with an average width of 20
feet. The natural buffer strip between the storm water quality pond and the wetland be a
minimum of 20 feet since this area will be the heaviest area of impact to the wetland during
' construction. This will move the storm water quality pond west approximately 15 feet, and
therefore, staff recommends constructing the pond on lots 10 and 11 in order to reduce the
impacts to the existing slopes. The pond should be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the
natural wetland. Side slopes can be designed as either 4:1 or 10:1 for the first 10 feet below
the normal water level and 3:1 thereafter for safety purposes. The storm sewer design
proposes two separate storm sewer lines to convey runoff to the storm water quality pond
before discharging to the natural wetland. The storm drainage system should be revised to
consolidate the storm discharge points to one point. This will require rerouting the storm
sewer from between Lots 15 and 16, Block 1 to tie into the storm sewer proposed in the cul-
t de -sac. The inlet should be located at the north end of the pond and the outlet at the south
end of the pond. Storm water calculations should be submitted to the City to verify that the
' treatment pond meets the Walker Pondnet standards.
The second drainage district includes a minor amount of runoff from lot 16 and the proposed
' street from lot 16 to Lake Lucy Road. The storm runoff drains toward Lake Lucy Road. The
applicant will have to show that the runoff from this portion of the site can be accommodated
by the existing storm sewer system on Lake Lucy Road. Staff does not believe drainage from
this area will be excessive; however, it should be verified by the applicant's engineer.
r
Coffman Development Company '
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994 '
Page 6
The third drainage district includes the runoff from Block 2. This runoff drains into wetlands '
along Yosemite and into a large wetland known as Clasen Lake north of the site. The runoff
from this area will be filtered through lawn areas and the buffer strip when development
occurs. At this time no pretreatment will be necessary. When Yosemite is upgraded this area '
may be considered for a pretreatment basin. The City's SWMP calls for a future 12 -inch
storm sewer to convey the runoff from the northerly wetland to Clasen Lake. The drainage
between the wetlands along Yosemite may need modifications such as a storm sewer '
connection as part of the development. If no development occurs in this area the
improvements still could be made and a credit given against the storm water quantity fees.
As a minimum, the applicant shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement over all wetlands '
and drainageways.
GRADING I
The existing site contains large wooded areas and is bordered by two large wetlands to the
west and east. Site elevations range from 1040 to the north to 994 at the wetlands. The site '
does provide quite the challenge for development. The applicant is proposing a 60 -foot wide
right -of -way and requesting 20 -foot building setbacks which results in saving trees or
minimizing grading to retain the natural topographic features. The revised plan concurs with ,
staff revisions for the street alignment which resulted in the house pads being pulled back up
on top of the hill to minimize grading and impact to the areas containing trees. However,
significant grading is still proposed on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 to provide for lookout -type ,
dwellings. These lots are not conducive to lookouts and should be redesigned for rambler
type dwellings and backyard drainage maintained in a sheet flow down the ridge versus the
proposed channelization between Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. ,
The applicant is also proposing one lot immediately adjacent to Lake Lucy Road (Lot 17) '
which is located on a very steep slope with some scattered trees. This lot is immediately
adjacent to the natural wetland as well. Staff does not believe that this lot is feasibly able to
be built on without mass regrading as well as tree loss. Staff is also concerned about ,
driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. The applicant is proposing numerous retaining walls
in an attempt to limit grading and tree loss throughout the development.
The P lans also proposes a storm water quality treatment pond adjacent to the natural wetland ,
on Lots 11, 12, 14 and 15. It is recommended that the pond be moved to Lots 10 and 11 to
fit better with the existing terrain. I
There are a few areas on -site that meet the City's definition of a bluff. These areas are where
the slope rises at least 25 feet above the toe of the bluff and where the grade of the slope
from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet above the toe of the bluff averages 30 percent or
r�
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994
Page 7
greater. The areas where the average slope is less than 18 percent over a distance of 50 feet
or more shall not be considered part of the bluff. Although this site is not included in the
bluff impact zones within the City, staff encourages the applicant to follow the grading and
structure setback guidelines designated for bluff impact zones.
EROSION CONTROL
1 The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be submitted to the
City for review and formal approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice
Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the
design process.
N UTILITIES
n
�I
1
Municipal sanitary sewer and water is available from Lake Lucy Road. The applicant has
proposed to extend sanitary sewer from the existing line through the rear portion of Lot 16
and extending it between Lots 15 and 16 to the proposed road. This will result in significant
grading on a very steep slope along with some additional tree removal. Staff has reviewed
the utility layout and believes the sanitary sewer can be extended from the proposed
intersection of Lake Lucy Road and the new road. This will require relaying a small portion
of the sanitary sewer line in the boulevard of Lake Lucy Road but this will eliminate the need
to go through the rear yards of Lots 15 and 16, Block 1. Staff believes, from a maintenance
and site impact standpoint, this alignment is much more feasible. The applicant is also
proposing to extend storm sewer in the same location of the sanitary sewer between Lots 15
and 16, Block 1. Staff has previously indicated in the staff report these two storm sewer lines
should be consolidated into one discharge point. This would also eliminate the need to go
down between the houses on Lots 15 and 16 and disrupt a very steep slope as well as remove
two additional very large trees, if not more. There is, however, an additional cost to
consolidate the storm sewer lines of approximately $8,000 to $10,000. We still believe that
this is a feasible alternative to minimize impact to the property owners in the future from a
maintenance standpoint as well as preserve additional trees and maintain the integrity of the
steep slopes adjacent to the natural wetland. Watermain is proposed to be extended from the
existing watermain in Lake Lucy Road.
Staff typically reviews access and utility service to parcels adjacent to development. To the
north of this development lies a large tract of land which does not currently have City sewer
and water available to it. As a part of this development, it is recommended the applicant
extend sewer and water service along the common property line of one of the lots (5, 6, 7, 8
or 9) to provide future sewer and water service to the parcel to the north. We believe future
Coffman Development Company `
Shadow Ridge '
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994 '
Page 8
street access to this development would be from Yosemite Avenue. The parcel currently
gains access through a private driveway from Yosemite Avenue. We also believe the '
applicant should dedicate a 30 -foot wide strip of land across the northerly 30 feet of Lot 1,
Block 2 for future road right -of -way to access the site to the north of this development.
The applicant is also proposing to develop 5 lots adjacent to Yosemite Avenue (Lots 1
through 5, Block 2). Currently, no City services exist along Yosemite Avenue adjacent to ,
these lots. City sewer and water ends just north of Lot 1, Block 2 in Yosemite. However,
the sanitary sewer is approximately 6 to 8 feet deep in that location and therefore cannot be
extended to service these lots without the use of ejector pumps in the homes. Staff believes '
that eventually sanitary sewer service will be brought up to the intersection of Lake Lucy
Road and Yosemite from the south at which time the sewer could be extended north on
Yosemite to service these parcels and parcels to the west of Yosemite. Therefore, at this time
we feel that development of these lots should be considered premature and should be platted
as an outlot until City sewer and water service becomes available and at which time Yosemite
Avenue will be required to be upgraded to urban standards. '
According to the utility billing department, the existing home at 1420 Yosemite is connected
to City water only. It appears this home is to be razed as a part of the development
'
construction. The existing home at 1430 which is located on Lot 1, Block 1, is currently
connected to City sewer but not water. According to City ordinance, the property owner may
retain his well until such time as it fails, at which time the property owner is required to
,
connect to City water. The existing septic system and well at 1420 Lake Lucy Road will
have to be properly abandoned per City /State codes in conjunction with site grading.
'
improvements,
Since the development will include the installation of public utility and street p rovements ,
the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide
the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee compliance with the
conditions of approval. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and formal City
Council approval detailed construction plans of the street and utility improvements. All street
and utility improvements should be designed and constructed in accordance to the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
STREETS
The site is proposed to take access from Lake Lucy Road. According to the City's '
comprehensive guide plan, Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street and therefore
limits driveway access points whenever other feasible options are available. Unfortunately,
on Lot 17, Block 1 due to topographic constraints the only option would be to provide access '
from Lake Lucy Road. Staff is comfortable with allowing a driveway access to this lot as
ii
Coffman Development Company
' Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994
Page 9
long as the sight distance along Lake Lucy Road meets or exceeds MnDOT standards for the
posted design speed. The proposed intersection of Lake Lucy Road and the new street is
located at the crest of the hill on Lake Lucy Road. Commission members may be somewhat
familiar with the sight distance problem that currently exists at the intersection of Yosemite
and Lake Lucy Road. There may be a similar concern for this proposed intersection. The
applicant's engineer should verify that adequate sight lines are provided in accordance with
MnDOT's sight distance requirements for the posted speeds. This may or may not require
adjusting the proposed intersection one way or the other along Lake Lucy Road. The total
right -of -way length for Shadow Lane is approximately 718 feet.
' Staff has worked with the applicant in realigning the north/south street easterly by
approximately 20 feet in an effort to minimize grading and tree loss on Lots 2 through 5,
Block 1. Staff also recommended adjusting the private driveway at the end of the cul -de -sac
which required losing one of the lots. However, the applicant has not followed staff's
recommendation and instead has shifted the building pad of Lot 9, Block 1 further up the hill
to minimize grading and tree loss. Based on the applicant's desire to custom grade and
incorporate retaining walls, the applicant's modification should work in this area.
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
The applicant has prepared tree preservation calculations for the development. Existing
canopy coverage is 6.72 acres. Based on a net developable acreage of 13.06 acres, this
' represents a base line canopy coverage of 51 percent. Using the canopy coverage matrix, this
development will be required to provide 35 percent canopy coverage or 4.57 acres of canopy
coverage. The applicant has prepared a worst case canopy coverage estimates for the
development which estimates a canopy coverage retention of 4.23 acres. Based on the review
of the site, the tree preservation area, and the applicant's statement that individual lots will be
1 custom graded, staff believes that the applicant will be able to meet the canopy coverage
requirements.
The applicant is proposing an extensive wetland and tree preservation areas (attached) within
the development encompassing approximately 6.4 acres. This area consists of approximately
1.89 acres of wetlands and 4.5 acres of tree preservation area. The tree preservation area
1 represents approximately 98 percent of the required canopy coverage area. As part of the
final plat, the tree preservation areas would need to be delineated as part of the final grading
plan. In addition, the applicant, through the Woodland Management Plan, should designate
lots that would be custom graded and incorporate any tree relocation proposed on site, and
other methods to be used to ensure tree survivability and health.
t
Coffman Development Company '
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994 ,
Page 10
Staff has two concerns with the proposed tree preservation areas. First, there is extensive '
grading proposed within the tree preservation area of Lot 2, Block 1. Secondly, the
proposed tree preservation area in the rear of Lots 11, 12, 14, and 15, Block 1 enclose
approximately one -half of the proposed storm water ponding area. Unless specifically ,
addressed in a woodland management plan or as part of a reforestation program, no grading
or alterations are permitted in these areas. Staff recommends that these tree preservation
areas be re- evaluated and either be revised or realigned to avoid the grading areas or have the '
grading plan revised to stay out of the tree preservation areas or have the woodland
management plan address the replanting of these areas.
Prior to the final plat approval, a Woodland Management Plan and Tree Preservation Plan
must be developed by a landscape professional pursuant to section 18 -61(d) of the City Code.
This plan must be submitted to the city and be approved by staff. '
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
The Park and Recreation Commission held their public hearing on this development on June I
28, 1994. Their recommendation is to require the payment of park and trail fees as specified
by City Ordinance in lieu of land dedication and trail development.. I
REZONING . I
The rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential is
consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan designation of the property as Residential Low
Density which permits net densities of 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre. The proposed net density of '
1.8 units per acre is well within the permitted density range.
1
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994
Page 11
COMPLIANCE TABLE
LOT,
WIDTH (ft)
DEPTH (ft)
TOTAL
NET
SETBACK,
WETLAND
BLOCK
LOT
BUILD-
WETLAND/
SETBACK,
AREA
ABLE
TREE
ft from
(sq ft)
AREA
PROTECTION
buffer, and
(sq ft)
AREA (sq ft)
the buffer
Code
90
125
15,000
Natural:40,
plus 20
average,
range 10 -
30;
Ag/Urban:
40, plus 10
avg
1, 1
240
146
34,600
20,880
13,720
NA
1,2
100
181.5
18,300
6,250
12,050
NA
1,3
100
212.5
22,800
6,650
16,150
NA
1,4
75*
210
24,000
7,360
16,640
NA
1,5
135
221
34,450
8,276
26,174
NA
1,6
85*
134
15,450
7,670
7,780
NA
1,7
115
129.5
15,225
7,265
7,960
NA
1,8
46*
141
15,550
7,690
7,860
NA
1,9
202
170
22,545
8,545
14,000
NA
1,10
202
297
31,950
6,760
25,190
40, plus 20
avg
1,11
50*
282
27,680
13,130
14,550
40, plus 20
avg
1,12
84*
149
15,170
11,110
4,070
40, plus 20
avg
1,13
105
130
15,900
8,450
7,450
NA
1,14
100
152.5
15,380
10,000
5,380
40, plus 20
avg
1
100
170
17,030
7,440
9,590
40, plus 20
avg
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994
Page 12
1,16
123
140
17,220
6,493
10,727
40, plus 20
avg
1,17
254
230
55,005
5,800
49,205
40, plus 20
avg
2,1
138
338
47,250
11,961
35,289
40, plus 10
avg
2,2
90
331
29,550
2,835
26,715
40, plus 10
avg
2,3
90
317
28,300
3,780
24,520
40, plus 10
avg
2,4
90
301
34,350
9,660
18,640
40, plus 10
avg
2,5
240
292.5
70,450
4,000
66,450
40, plus 10
avg
Notes: *Meets minimum width at building setback; # does not meet minimum lot area; NA - not applicable
FINDINGS
Variance Section 18 -22
1. The Hardship is not a mere inconvenience.
Finding City staff has recommended that the applicant pursue these variances in
order to fulfill policies for preservation of trees, wetlands, and severe slopes.
2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surrounding, shape, or topographical
conditions of the land.
Finding: The property contains part or all of three wetlands, is densely wooded and
contains areas of steep slopes. The granting of the requested variances will allow the
development to minimize environmental impacts on the site.
3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not
generally applicable to other property.
Finding The property contains part or all of three wetlands, is densely wooded and
contains areas of steep slopes. Under any circumstances, this site would be difficult to
. I
J
C
Coffman F evelopment Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994
Page 13
develop. The confluence of these conditions make the development of this site
unique.
4. The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public health,
is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan.
Finding: The granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health in
the these variances will assist in preservation of trees, wetlands and steep slopes. City
policy requires that development preserve to the maximum extent feasible unique
environmental features and, therefore, the granting of these variances is consistent with
this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and the comprehensive plan.
Preliminary Plat Section 18 -39
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single
Family District. Staff supports the granting of variances for side and front yards in
Block 1 in an effort to preserve trees, steep slopes, and wetlands.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable plans.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions and
revisions specified in this report. Of special concern are the steep slopes around the
easterly wetland and separating the east and west portions of this development. The
applicant shall attempt to minimize the grading in these areas and to move house pads
away from the top of the slope. Type III erosion control will be required adjacent to
all wetland areas and on steep slopes.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994
Page 14
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. Block
2 shall be platted as an outlot until such time as sewer and water is extended from the
intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite Avenue. The number of lots that can
be developed in Block 2 will have to be evaluated at a future date. Of special concern
,
are the steep slopes around the easterly wetland and separating the east and west
portions of this development. The applicant shall attempt to minimize the grading in
these areas and to move house pads away from the top of the slope.
'
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage provided the
_� P P
recommended conditions of approval are met.
'
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
,
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. ,
b. Lack of adequate roads.
C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
support s '
d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements o r upp systems.
Finding The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban ,
infrastructure. Staff recommends that Block 2 be platted as a outlot until such
time as sewer and water service can be provided from the intersection of Lake
Lucy Road and Yosemite. '
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE L
The Planning Commission met on July 6, 1994 to review the proposed development. The
Planning Commission was concerned with the integrity of the natural environment as part of
the development of the site. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the
development subject to the conditions of approval as modified (in bold). '
' Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994
Page 15
' As part of the discussion, the applicant expressed his wish to plat Block 2 in order to grade
the area and use it as a location to put the excavated dirt from Block 1. Staff advised the
applicant that he would still be able to grade and place the excavated dirt even if it was
' platted as an outlot since the City could approve the grading plan for this area as part of the
entire subdivision. Staff's opinion is that Outlot A is premature because it lacks city sewer
and Yosemite is not built to city standards. In addition, staff believes that 5 lots may not fit
' in this area. Placing area in an outlot allows this issue to be resolved at a later date. Staff's
support for the grading of the outlot is contingent on the applicant providing type I erosion
control around the wetlands and maintaining a minimum 20 foot buffer strip around the
northerly wetland and a minimum 30 foot buffer strip around the southerly wetland as part of
the grading plan (in bold and underlined).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -4 to create 17 lots and
one outlot on 15.99 acres of land, and rezoning (Rezoning 94 -2) the property from RR, Rural
Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential, consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan,
approves a 10 foot side setback variance from the 20 foot side setback requirement for flag
lots for Lots 5, 9, and 10, Block 1, grants a variance of 10 feet from the 30 foot front setback
requirement for Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 to permit a 20 foot front setback and a 5 foot
setback variance from the 30 foot front setback to permit a 25 foot setback on Lot 2,
Block 1, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year
PP
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
' accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post -
developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events. Normal water level and
' high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations
between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch
basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall
i be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
2. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of
$25,938.00 assuming 13.1 acres of developable land. Water quality assessments will
be waived if the applicant constructs an on -site Walker pretreatment basin. These fees
' will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the
site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the
Coffman Development Company '
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994 '
Page 16
SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be ,
changed prior to final plat.
3.
Stormwater runoff from Lot 16 and the access road is shown to discharge to Lake
'
Lucy Road. The applicant shall demonstrate that the runoff from this portion of land
can be handled by the existing drainage system on Lake Lucy Road. Detailed storm
calculations shall be provided to the City Engineer.
4.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found
during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City
Engineer.
5.
The existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 will be required to connect to City water once
the well on the property fails.
6.
The applicant shall work with staff in determining the most feasible location to extend
,
sanitary sewer and water services to the north (Stewart parcel).
7.
The grading plan shall be revised to limit the house types on Lots 2, 3, 6 and 7, Block
1 to rambler style homes and Lots 4, 5, 8 and 13, Block 1 to side /corner walkout type
dwelling. The lot grading on Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 shall be revised to maintain the
existing "sheet flow" to the west. Concentrated or funnelled runoff shall be
prohibited.
8.
The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be
,
abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes.
9.
The stormwater retention pond shall be relocated further to the northeast on Lots 10
,
and 11. The storm sewer system between Lots 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be redirected
within the proposed street and combined into one discharge point on Lot 11, Block 1.
'
10.
Lots 1 through 5, Block 2 shall sheald be platted as an outlot due to the lack of
adequate utilities and street. This outlot would not be subdividable or buildable until
Yosemite Road is upgraded to the City's urban standard, municipal sanitary sewer and
water is extended adjacent to the parcel, and wetland setback and buffer area issues
are resolved.
11.
Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat.
The minimum easement width should be 20 feet.
,
Coffman Development Company
' Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994
Page 17
12. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
' necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements
and compliance of the conditions of approval.
13. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and
formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration.
14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed
' District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies
and comply with their conditions of approval.
15. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and
disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading
unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate
1 otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
16. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
17. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction
begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
' 18. Prior to the final plat approval, a Woodland Management Plan and Tree preservation
Plan must be developed by a landscape professional pursuant to section 18 -61(d) of
the City Code. This plan must be submitted to the city for staff approval.
19. A 25 foot front setback is allowed on Lot 2, Block 1 and a 20 foot front setback is
granted on Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 to move the building pads away from the top
of the slope and to preserve trees. The applicant shall incorporate retaining walls and
custom grading to assure that slopes and trees are minimally impacted. Staff
encourages the developer to incorporate bluff protection guidelines in the development.
20. Pay park and trail fees as specified by city ordinance.
L
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994
Page 18
21. Submit revised utility plans for approval of locations of fire hydrants. Fire hydrant I
spacing is 300 foot maximum.
22.
A ten foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure
'
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated.
'
23.
Submit turning radius and cul -de -sac dimensions to the City Engineer and Fire
Marshal for approval.
24.
Advise Fire Marshal of the status of water main and fire hydrant placement and
spacing on Yosemite Avenue, west of Lots l - 5, Block 2.
25.
Revise the relimina grading plan to show the location of house pads, using standard
P rY
designations, and lowest level floor and garage elevations prior to final plat approval.
26.
The tree reservation areas shall be delineated on the final grading plan as part of the
P g gP
i
final plat approval. The tree preservation areas in Lots 2, 3, 11, 12, 14, and 15 shall
be re- evaluated and either be revised or realigned to avoid the grading areas, or have
'
the grading plan revised to stay out of the tree preservation areas, or have the
woodland management plan address the replanting of these areas.
,
27.
i for buildable space on each lot shall be forwarded to City Council.
Calculations o bud p Y
28. In conjunction with submittal of a building permit application for Lot 17, Block
1, the applicant shall submit detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan
subject to the Watershed District's approval prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
29. The grading of the outlot is contingent on the applicant providing type I erosion_
control around the wetlands and maintaining a minimum 20 foot buffer strip
around the southerly wetland (basin 2) as part of the revised grading plan.
Attachments
1. Development Review Application '
2. Development Narrative by William D. Coffman, Jr.
3. Preliminary Plat ,
4. Preliminary Utility Plan
�J
i
L�
C
1
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Update July 18, 1994
Page 19
5. Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan
6. Canopy Coverage Calculations
7. Wetland and Tree Preservation Areas
8. Letter from Schoell & Madson to Coffman Development dated 6/22/94 (Sight Distance)
9. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated 6/2/94
10. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated 6/6/94
11. Letter from Joe Richter dated 6/1/94
12. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List
13. Planning Commission Minutes of 7/6/94
14. Preliminary plat dated June 22, 1994
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
590 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
�offi✓lA� �LVEZaP/`l L GryP/� y OWNER: ?
APPLICANT:
.9- � //d t v1j .
ADDRESS: 51 51 ESN /N >v 2 e 6 AD DRESS:
wig 87 c " /� /i✓A I'Al 55 G�x���s�r� l "!N 55331
S
'
TELEPHONE (Day time) 93S; — / Z U TELEPHONE:
'
/Easements
'
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance
1
3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit
4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal
'
5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
g. Rezoning
7. Sign Permits
8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs
9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
$10o CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor & Bounds
10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
'
„ of trans
8 X 11 Reduced copy transparency for each plan sheet. p
' NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
" Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION / 9 0 2t / y 3 D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION S � jrcrs'
PRESENT ZONING _
REQUESTED ZONING
1
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
As i 2> sA.17 C _—
Lo'✓
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST %
�ELd 5 AN 6 C
' This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
l
! ,- - /f/� � /4
5 C
Dat
I Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the or igina l document returned to City Hall Records.
C
n
EMIB12 ^A"
Commencing at the Westerly i cornea of Section 2,
Township 116, Range 23, Carver '
County, Minnesota; thence Easterly along the E -W Center Section line 330.1 feet;
thence deflect left 90 degrees 06 minutes along the centerline of App Ro
331.8 feet to the point of beginning, thence deflect right parallel with the '
said. center section line 402.00 feet; thence deflect left 90 degrees 00 minutes
405.00 feet; thence deflect le$� degrees o to m inutes
centerline 7offdriveway ;�c deflect
thence
t
righ 90 degrees 00 minutes 2 the
,
deflect left along said centerline ence said d rlyealongothe s centerline intersection of said
centerline of said Apple Road,
Apple Road to the point of beginning.
AND
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest '
Quarter of Section 2, Township eet North,
Range 23 West; thence North along
to a point; thence West p o int n
tot
the one half quarter line 589 feet a quarter
South parallel with the first mentioned line 598.7 feet to a p
place of . beginning, containing,
Section line; thence East on said line 600 feet to
8.18 acres of land.
Also commencing at a point 589 feet North of the Southeast corner of the Southwest ,
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Townshigfeet; Range thence
North 137 feet; thence West 600 feet, thence South
feet to the place of beginning, containing 1.82 acres of land.
[I
1.
Coffman Development
' Company
F1
May 18, 1994
City of Chanhassen
' 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
111 -Sentinel Building
X151 Edina Industrial Boulevard
Edina, ?Minnesota 5D430
61 , ;'S»-1 , 0
'
T whom om it
may concern.
'
Coffman Development Company respectfully
requests Preliminary
Plat approval
of Shadow
Ridge, a 23 lot subdivision on
approximately fifteen
acres of land
located at 1420
and 1430 Lake Lucy Road.
Phase one
shall consist of 18 homesites with the existing home
at 1430 Lake
Lucy Road
remaining on Lot 1, Block 1. The home
at 1420 Lake Lucy Road will be
razed. The
remaining 17 homesites will be
sold to one or more
custom home
'
builders for
phase one
homes in the $300,000 and up
will hopefully begin August 10,
price range. Grading
1994 with completion
operations for
of all utilities
by October
15, 1994.
Phase two shall consist of 5 homesites all being served from Yosemite Avenue.
The grading plan for this phase has not been completed due to the fact there are
' several engineering issues yet to be resolved. Therefore the timing of phase two
construction has not yet been determined.
Two variances are being requested at this time. First, we request the 20 foot
side yard setback for flag lots be reduced to 10 feet. This only affects Lots 5, 9
' and 10, Block 1. This will aid in tree preservation and natural topography
preservation. Secondly, we request the 40 foot setback required from a wetland
Distinctive Neighborhoods since 1950
1
buffer strip be reduced to 25 feet to the deck only, on Lot 18, Block 1. This will
allow a deck to be built on this home in the normal fashion.
It is our sincere intention to develop Shadow Ridge into a highly desirable
upscale neighborhood. We believe this will be accomplished by preserving the
three wetlands on the site, by preserving most of the natural topographic
features of the site with the use of relatively deep lots as well as flag lots, and
by maintaining the wooded nature of the site by building boulder retaining walls
to preserve wooded slopes and also placing tree preservation easements across
much of the site.
Respectfully submitted,
William D. ff n, Jr.
President
CoffnIl�n Development
Company
June 23, 1994
TO: Bob Generous
FROM: Bill Coffman
RE: Shadow Ridge Tree Calculations (Revised Design)
Total Gross Area
15.99 Acres
Lake Lucy R.O.W.
- .55 Acres
Yosemite R.O.W.
- .49 Acres
Wetlands
- 1.89 Acres
Site Size for Tree Calculations
13.06 Acres
11 Sentinel Buildinc
5151 Edina Industrial Boulevard
Edina, i�4innesota 554-19
612; ,S?; -12 7 0
Baseline Tree Canopy 6.72 Acres
= 51% Baseline Canopy Coverage
Site Size (Trees) 13.06 Acres
51% Baseline Canopy relates to 35% Canopy retention required
(post development).
Site Size for Tree Calculations 13.06 Acres
Canopy Retention required X 35%
Post Development 4.57 Acres
Canopy required
Baseline Tree Canopy 6.72 Acres
Tree Removal (worst case) - 2.49 Acres
Remaining Tree Canopy 4.23 Acres
Post Development (worst case)
Distinctive Neighborhoods since 1950
Required Canopy Post
Development 4.57 Acres
Remaining Canopy (worst case) -4.23 Acres
Additional Canopy Required .34 Acres
Canopy Acres Short (worst case) .34 Acres
Surface Area Multiplier X 1.2
Reforested Area (worst case) .41 Acres
Acres to Reforest .41 Acres
Trees /Acre X 40
Additional Trees 16.4
(worst case)
Due to the fact that any desirable trees on site that can be moved with a tree spade will be
saved, that the site will be custom graded, saving numerous other trees, and that approxi-
mately 20 additional evergreens will be moved onto the site, I do not foresee any problems
exceeding all city tree requirements.
�z
Scale 1 Inch = 50 Feet
J
4
L ...
YYPIICAL LOT DETAIL
goofs masewnw.
Ts
& MADSON. INC. SCME
R N PLAT OP.
REVISIONS r4 —w-mo LL . UINT MELOOMMY
V COMAN DEVELOPMENT
e.r 3:L:SY+u. r. —�— m ..l.I. �..auyla .+tl 1
SHADOW RIDGE
S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61032-010 SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS
�T
( 07
\ �.
�. / { �,.c \ I �/ � Scale 7 Inch = 50 Feet / '� .• :•'� \ H F • w n LEGEND
It
x , � ;.. � ■rinixc saoall edex
I� r �� � ,rnwsm amd sdsa
3 � e
• / ` \ errs—+ ' ,._ .. ti — � ..
�twsioHS >1E! I .. SCH�0� e: MAosoN CUMT 1 TLffv PLAN GR -- -
_ - ' INC, COFFMXN DEVELOPMENT y p Y ywl'!gxrV . sulk 1 SHOW AD RIDGE
n7i3AY 1`{YVSa
�� w (�It) iNCMi -IOae
S.Y:1. AM Cr NO. dlffM WW
mmmmmmmm
.FA --
oz-
MA
air
s
i
� ��� "�% J� l j /• a I'
SV38V NOIIVAU3S3ad 33ui QNV ANVIJ.3M
— SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC.
ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
105BO WAYZATA BOULEVARD • SUITE 1 • MINNETONKA, MN 55305 -1525
[612) 546 -7601 • FAX (612) 546.9065
June 22, 1994
Coffman Development, Inc.
117 Sentinel Bldg.
5151 Edina Ind. Blvd.
Edina, MN 55439
Attention: Mr. Bill Coffman
Subject: Shadow Ridge
Dear Bill,
We have reviewed the sight distance of Lake Lucy Road at your
proposed SHADOW LANE and find it conforms with MnDOT's design criteria
for stopping sight distance for a 35 mph road.
Enclosed is a drawing showing site lines on Lake Lucy Road
to assist you if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
Gerald L. Backman
GLB /cl
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
t' VED
V . 2 f } •r
CHAN HASM PLANNING DEPT
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • EGUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
LL 1
-- --- - - - - - - - - -- � =" 24 23 - 22
m
r
-- C DRIVEWAY (TvaICAL) --7 L CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
;DN BRIAN TICHY
r
DOC.64877 DOC 6 °36D
r
5^C'VC
M = -6 80
--------- - - - - --
cc
x
a.
r
TERRANCE
ALFRED HARVEY
81103 P
SK 81 P. 53
3
LAKE
D
LUCY ,
r
r
441 1
DRAINTILE
LL 1
-- --- - - - - - - - - -- � =" 24 23 - 22
m
r
-- C DRIVEWAY (TvaICAL) --7 L CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
;DN BRIAN TICHY
r
DOC.64877 DOC 6 °36D
r
5^C'VC
M = -6 80
--------- - - - - --
cc
x
a.
3
LAKE
D
LUCY ,
�C4dA� ry �`E `I
W I TH
1 eFLVC ,�iT
V \EW r�ONTS
r
1
i
r
I
i
-,
L am'
C
1
l
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Bob Generous, Planner H
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: June 2, 1994
SUBJ: Lake Lucy, Yosemite Road
Shadow Ridge
Planning Case #94 -4 SUB and #94 -2 REZ
I have reviewed the submitted plans and have the following requirements:
1. Submit revised utility plans for approval of locations of fire hydrants. Fire hydrant spacing is
300 foot maximum.
2. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval. This is to avoid duplication of existing street
names to minimize confusion in 'emergency situations.
3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes: This is to insure that fire hydrants can be
quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1.
4. Submit turning radius and cul -de -sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval.
Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204 (d) and 10.203.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: June 6, 1994
SUBJ: 94 -4 SUBand 94 -2 REZ (Shadow Ridge)
Background:
I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items
that should be added as conditions of approval.
Analysis:
In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public
Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents.
Locations of proposed house pads and 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, SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen
the chance for en ors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed.
The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval.
1. Submit street names to the Public'Safety'
plat approval.
2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to s
designations and the lowest level floor
to final plat approval.
enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum
ent, Inspecions Division for review prior to final
location of proposed house pads, using standard
ige floor elevations. This should be done prior
g:\safe"k\memos\plan\shdwrdge .bg 1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • FO. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official )�- cr
' 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 reasoning
behind the requirements.
Yr �
Fi3O or RLO Designates Front Inokout or Rear ;'I ookogt This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
approximately 8' below grade at its kepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level`
R Designates Rambler. This incl des dwellings with` the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade ap} xoximately level. Tbis 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. "r
SEWO Designates Spirt Fishy Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sipping 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 This inctudes dwelhngs.with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level m'tte> ear of the dwelling.
TU
' - SE nR SEWO Wp FLO
RLO
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
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
two PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
It IN S TATE OF J
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
PHONE N0. 772 -7910 FILE NO.
I
i I
June 1, 1994
Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: SHADOW RIDGE, COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, CITY OF
CHANHASSEN (94 -4 SUB), CARVER COUNTY
Dear Mr. Generous:
We have reviewed the site plans (received May 24, 1994) for the
above - referenced project (Section 2, T116N -R23W) and have the
following comments to offer:
1. The project site does not contain any Public Waters or Public
Waters Wetlands; therefore, no DNR permit is required.
However, it appears there are wetlands on the site that are
not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. You should
be aware that your project may be subject to federal and local
wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional
comments on your project through our review of applications
submitted under these other regulatory programs.
2. The site does not appear to be within a shoreland or
floodplain district.
3. It appears that the stormwater is treated in the wetland. In
general, we are opposed to the primary treatment of stormwater
in wetlands. Sedimentation/ treatment facilities should be
used to protect the wetland from sedimentation and water level
bounces which are detrimental to the basins wildlife values
and water quality. The determination of what is best at this
particular site should be addressed by the city and other
agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands subject to the
Wetland Conservation Act.
4. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed
restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas.
This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen
have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot
be altered without appropriate permits.
ti
I �
AI
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
' Mr. Generous
June 1, 1994
Page 2
5. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed
developments:
a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken
during the construction period. The Minnesota
Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association
of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts)
guidelines, or their equlvaiant, should be followed.
b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000
gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the
contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations
permit. You are advised that it typically takes
approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
C. If construction activities disturb more than five acres
of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater
permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott
Thompson @ 296 - 7203).
d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of
Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These
comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack
thereof for a particular project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at
772 -7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
c: Riley- Purgatory Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, Gary Elftmann
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, JUNE 15, 1994
at 7 :30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Shadow Ridge
Developer: Coffman Development
Location: 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy
Road
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is requesting to rezone 17.6 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential
to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat to subdivide 17.6 acres of property into
23 single family lots with wetland setback variances and side yard setback variances on the flag
lots, located at 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy Road, Shadow Ridge (Harvey /O'Brien) Coffman
Development Company.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you
about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. '
During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following
steps:.
1. 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.
to see the plans before the meeting, lease stop
Questions or Comments: If you want p g, p P
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937 - 1900, ext. 141. If you choose ,
to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. '
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 2, 1994.
* The Park and Recreation Commission will
hear this item on June 28 at 7:30 P.m.
n E
* undgren Bros. Const.
35 East Wazyata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
1
Lester & Stephanie Morrow
t 673 Mulberry Circle
hanhassen, MN 55317
Kathryn Stoddart
1 611 West 63rd Street
xcelsior, MN 55331
L ale Hiebert & Susan Jorgenson
6510 Yosemite
xcelsior, MN 55331
ichael Schmidt
70 Yosemite
xcelsior, MN 55331
1 E
1 ichael & Mary Koester
641 Wood Duck Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
1
Leonard Sr. & Luvilla Koehnen
§ 631 West 63rd Street
xcelsior, MN 55331
, John & Donette Leduc
6401 Teton Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
,Jon & Julie Thornberg
1320 Stratton Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
S. John & Lisa Hagenstein
1331 Stratton Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Wayne R. & Debra Patterson
6637 Mulberry Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Eric & Lisa Kleven Lehrer
6601 Mulberry Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Shirley Hopf
6420 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
Harry & Joeann Desasntis
6440 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
Michael O'Neill &
Diane Utzman- O'Neill
1671 Pintail Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331
Emma St. John
1621 West 63rd Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
Glenn & Teresa VanderGalien
6371 Teton Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
Randy & Sheree Karl
6391 Teton Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
James & Mary Benson
1310 Stratton Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Craig & Leslie Carlson
1341 Stratton Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
David & Lindsay Anderson
6655 Mulberry Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Andrew & Anne Eckert
6619 Mulberry Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bruce & Nannette Twaddle
6430 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
Laura Warner Lundquist
6460 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
Richard Saffrin
1661 Wood Duck Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas & Ann Nye
1641 West 63rd Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
James & Rhonda Downie
6361 Teton Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
Frank & Mary Uggla
6381 Teton Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
Mark & Kathy Paulsen
1321 Stratton Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
William & Lori Delay
1350 Stratton Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bruce & Annette Kotzian Robert & Margaret Thompson Neil & Susan Bergquist
1340 Stratton Court 1330 Stratton Court 1311 S cratton Court
than Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gregory & Julie Carter
6600 Charing Bend
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Todd Posusta & Robin Bury
6480 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
Robert & Sandra Kendall
3734 Elmo Road
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Brian & Nancy Tichy
1471 Lake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Charles Herbert
6411 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
Eric & Jean Lopez
6606 Charing Bend
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Almond Krueger
1600 Lake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Robert & E. Christensen
1511 Lake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Joseph & D. Gayle Morin
1441 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James Sr. & Mary Emmer
6321 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
Mark & Katheryn Bastiansen
6301 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
Elxabeth Glaccum
1510 Lake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
David Peterson
6451 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
Donald & Carol Oelke
6431 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
Carolyn Wise
6401 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
Douglas & Joan Ahrens
6601 Charing Bend
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Myrna Johnson
1630 Lake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Theodore Coey
1381 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kristi J. Willis
6890 Utica Terrace
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Todd Bogema
6371 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas & Elizabeth Steward
6471 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
William & Ginni Nordvik
1375 Lilac Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Mancino: Any discussion?
Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
' of the amendment to the CBD, Central Business District to allow schools as a permitted
use as shown in the attachment. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mancino: And this goes to the City Council when?
Aanenson: Actually it goes on Monday... decision for the school year so they were going
forward on the interpretation ... we just wanted to expedite this based on the fact that they...
Mancino: Okay, and next Monday is what, July?
Aanenson: 1 lth.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY TO REZONE 17.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY
ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 17.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 23
K ,
I
Ledvina:
No comments. I support the staff recommendations.
Conrad:
Nothing.
'
Mancino:
Any?
Y
'
Harberts:
I'm fine.
'
Mancino:
Okay. So am I, so do I have a motion?
Harberts:
I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that we
'
amend the CBD district as shown on the Attachment.
Mancino:
Do I have a second?
Ledvina:
Second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
' of the amendment to the CBD, Central Business District to allow schools as a permitted
use as shown in the attachment. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mancino: And this goes to the City Council when?
Aanenson: Actually it goes on Monday... decision for the school year so they were going
forward on the interpretation ... we just wanted to expedite this based on the fact that they...
Mancino: Okay, and next Monday is what, July?
Aanenson: 1 lth.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY TO REZONE 17.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY
ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 17.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 23
K ,
I
7
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCES AND SIDE ,
1430 LAKE LUCY ROAD, SHADOW RIDGE (HARVEY /U'BRiEN). ,
Public Present:
Name Address
Dale Hiebert 6510 Yosemite Avenue ,
Elizabeth Ann Glaccum 1510 Lake Lucy Road
Craig & Leslie Carlson 1341 Stratton Court
Bill & Lori Delay 1350 Stratton Court
Terry & Millie O'Brien 1420 Lake Lucy Road
Al & Mary Harvey 1430 Lake Lucy Road
Ken Adolf Schoell & Madson
Bill Coffman Coffman Development Company
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. ,
Mancino: Bob, could you just give us an overall look at what's surrounding this property?
Like who is in this, what I want to say, southwestern parcel. Right here it sets a single '
family home. What's around this property? What's going on right now?
Generous: Curry Farm Estates is located to the east of that. They are single family homes. ,
It's all single family homes in the area. There's large, unplatted lots to the south across the
street. There are some preliminary discussions about development of those properties but
that's as far as they've come for other single family subdivisions. There's single family to '
the north. Large lot that the Stewart's own that could subdivided sometime in the future.
This whole area is designated for residential, low density which is our single family
subdivision. '
Mancino: Any other questions for Bob?
Farmakes: On some of these housing pad questions that you've brought up. There's a fair
drop on some of these but they're showing these pads. You feel that these will, that amount
of drop will take a house without causing any severe grading problems?
Hempel: I'll attempt to address that one. A majority of the lots, yes, are designated for a '
walkout type dwelling home. One lot of particular concern is on Lot 17 there right off Lake
Lucy Road. That has a very significant drop and will most likely be an engineered
i
4
I t
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
foundation when it goes for a building permit and receives approval for that lot. Similar to, I
believe it's Lot 14 on the plat as well. Or excuse me, it would be 15 is a lot that has pretty
significant slopes. The remaining lots...
Farmakes: And where you showed those tree areas, those tree preserves where those steep
ridges are on 14, 12, 11 and 10, those remain unbuildable then right? Within the preservation
area.
Mancino: Any other questions for staff? Then does the applicant or the designee wish to
' address the Planning Commission?
Hempel: If I could just make one more clarification on the conditions of approval. There
' was some discussion with regards to the net developable acreage which our Surface Water
Management fee is calculated off of. I believe the staff report reads 14 acres and I believe it
should be 13.1 which would also revise the total assessment fee down to $25,938.00.
Mancino: I think it's 13.06.
Hempel: That's condition number 2.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Could you give your name and. address.
Ken Adolf. Madam Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and
Madson. We're the engineers for the applicant which is Coffman Development. Also here
this evening is Bill Coffman who is the president of Coffman Development. The applicant is
agreeing to 26 of the 27 conditions that are listed here. One of them has been deleted but the
exception is number 11 which recommends that the Block 2 area be platted as an outlot and
held out for—development. This is important to the applicant because the grading, the site
grading of the first phase generates 100,000 cubic yards of excess material. Excess soil and
there's a shortage of soil on the Block 2 area so he wants to take that excess and place it into
the Block 2 area. Reduce the amount of imported fill that will be necessary there. The
excess fill is really cutting down the hole there where the house and the pole barn and the
area which... The reasons that were cited by staff for platting of the Block 2 area as an outlot
were inadequate streets and utilities. That both lots would front on Yosemite, which is a
serviced street, although substandard. The applicant would agree to the assessments for future
street improvements and would commit the future lot owners to the same. As far as the
sanitary sewer and water service, there is existing sewer and water just to the west. I've got
a transparency which indicates how sewer and water service could be provided. I should say
the existing sewer and water is to the north of Yosemite. That's dashed in, the existing water
is in the dashed blue and the existing sewer's in the dashed red. The water can be extended
5
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
really with no problem. The problem is with the sanitary sewer which is too high an
elevation to allow serving the proposed lots. What is proposed as far as sewer service is a
gravity sewer which would flow from the south to a temporary lift station and the lift station
would help force through the existing sewer. Ultimately we understand that this area would
be served or is presently intending to be served by extension of the gravity sewer from the
west on Lake Lucy Road, although the construction of that is indefinite at this point. When
that sewer line would be installed and the gravity line runs through the Block 2 area, could be
connected to that sewer line and the temporary lift station would be eliminated. So we feel
that this is a reasonable alternative to providing both sewer and water to these 5 lots that are
proposed in the Block 2 area. The staff also indicated some concern regarding the number of
lots in that area... The Block 2 area contains about 5 1/2 acres of land of which about 1.2 is
included into wetlands. This leaves 4.3 acres of upland area which we feel is more than
adequate for the 5 lots that are shown. In fact we have a sketch plan that shows several
additional lots there which are flag lots coming off of Yosemite. There were some concerns
cited about the wetland setback on Lot 5 and that, a buffer could be provided on that lot by
shifting the lot lines to the north. Again, the Block 2 area was actually proposed as a phase 2
of the development. However as I indicated, it is important to the applicant because he needs
to dispose of the excess material in the first phase. Just a couple other comments. The
applicant has met with the neighbors regarding the development. He has a letter of intent to
sell the lots, all of the lots to one builder. Custom builder and this builder is very
experienced in building in wooded areas and preserving trees and Bill has some photos that
will demonstrate that. That really ends the discussion we had. As I indicated, the only
problem we've got is the staff recommendation for item 11. We'll be happy to address any
questions.
Mancino: Any questions for Mr. Adolf?
Ledvina: I had one. Had you proposed this alternate with a lift station to staff before this
evening?
Ken Adolf: No I didn't. I think there, well there were some general discussion about a lift
station but that was proposed as a second phase and the utility service wasn't indicated on the
preliminary utility plans submitted.
Ledvina: Thank you.
Mancino: Dave, would you like to respond to temporary?
Hempel: Sure. There was an initial conversation with regard to the utility service to this
block. After further discussions with the City Engineer, we felt that it would better to be
J
I
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
1
served in the future from the extension of the sanitary sewer line north along Yosemite from
Lake Lucy Road. However, as Mr. Adolf indicated, the timing of that is probably 2 years
down the road yet. There has been some preliminary discussions of property owners along
the south side of Lake Lucy Road of development proposals. However, nothing definite at
this time. We feel that the lift station is an undue burden from a maintenance standpoint,
especially for only 3 or 4 or 5 homes. In addition to that, Yosemite Road is not upgraded to
the current city urban standards as a temporary type of road service that the city actually
installed a couple years ago to minimize maintenance of the gravel road that was there, so
there's really no storm water improvements, storm sewer, curb and gutter and so forth and I
believe the right -of -way along the street also is below our typical standards.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Would anyone like to open the public hearing?
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: The public hearing is open. Those who would like to speak, please come up in
front of the podium. Give your name and address. We'd like to hear from you. No one at
all?
Dale Hiebert: Yes. Dale Hiebert. I live at 6510 Yosemite, which is directly across the street
from the 5 lots we're talking about. My big concern is drainage. Everybody I've talked to is
aware that I have drain file that drains onto those lots and I just want to make sure that I'm
protected here. That you know about it. Everybody I talk to seems to know about it. I just
want to ... so everybody hears me and water and sewer, if it comes down Yosemite, am I
required to hook up to the water then? I'm presently not hooked up to the water. I have a
lift station. And those are my two concerns.
Mancino: Dave, can you answer those?
Hempel: Certainly. With regards to the drain tiles in the area, it's been the city's policy
whenever a drain file is encountered, that we try to resolve it either by relocating it to
maintain the drainage from the system, or incorporating it into one of the storm sewer
systems so it maintains the flow of water and the upstream water of these drain tiles do
impact the residential neighborhoods. There's quite a network of pipes throughout the city
with ag fields—that's been developed so we do try to maintain each one of those drain tiles
when we encounter them. At times they're abandoned... but in most cases we do reroute them
into one of the proposed storm sewer systems. As far as the connection to the city water
service, the ordinance states that as long as the well is functioning properly, you're not
7
i I
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 ;
required to hook up to the city water. You are required to hook up to city sewer but from my
understanding you're currently connected so you would be safe until your well fails.
Dale Hiebert: Alright, thanks.
Mancino: Anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ,
Mancino: Public hearing is closed. Comments from the commissioners. Diane.
Harberts: I don't know, I'm somewhat confused with regard to the Lots 1 thru 5. In terms
of developing versus waiting. I always have a problem with variances to the setbacks. But it
seems that I understand because of the topography that it's probably warranted. So I guess
there's the values there. I guess what I'm trying to wrestle with is really the Lots 1 thru 5.
Otherwise you know from a preliminary plat, from my perspective, I don't have a lot of
problems with the other material but I was just trying to wrestle with 1 thru 5. That's the
extent.
Mancino: Okay. Maybe we'll come back to you after hearing what Ladd has to say. ,
Harberts: Oh I don't know about that one.
' 1 summary, on a ,
Conrad: I don't think so. In the staff proposa mmary, e 2. It talked about the page
developer wanting to, the applicant to reduce setbacks and buffer strips minimized and that.
But then I didn't, you know I didn't see in the report any change, recommended change to ,
the plans which tells me that the applicant has changed their plans in accordance with your
position?
Generous: At least for Block 1. Our issues were all on Block 2.
Conrad: Okay so it seems we're in a kind of a sensitive area with real significant slopes.
And it seems that in those areas we don't reduce, we increase if anything. So we go to the
max versus the minimum. I guess I don't have, I think the proposal looks okay and I think '
the flag lots are acceptable. The variances on those. I think that meets some of the needs we
have and I think most of the staff report makes a lot of sense. It's just this one particular
issue that, in terms of protecting the environment, I can't tell and that's why I'm asking you
the question, and you're saying it's okay. We have built in those buffers and we are doing
8
I
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
' what our ordinances require. So does that mean that we have a 20 foot buffer around the
wetlands now?
' Generous: The natural wetlands.
Conrad: Around the natural wetlands.
' Generous: In the southeast and southwest.
Conrad: And our ordinance says they can be somewhere, our ordinance says they can be 10
to 20 feet?
1 Generous: 10 to 30 feet.
Conrad: 10 to 30. So why didn't we pick 30?
Aanenson: What we do is we averse the, we have that flexibility. We certainly can do
g tY Y
that—average.
Conrad: J
Okay. I just wanted.
Aanenson: ...and that's why we raised it on Block 2 because that's certainly one that we
want to, I mean we're questioning the integrity of those lots.
Conrad: Yeah.
Generous: And Block I ... on that natural wetland and combining it into one and provided us
with a large preservation area that won't be affected at all.
Conrad: Okay, so you've looked at it and you're comfortable that that buffer and whatever is
appropriate so I'm not trying to push 30 feet when we don't need a 30 foot buffer.
Generous: It will get larger than that in some areas.
Conrad: Okay. But you're using the ordinance for what we want? Okay.
Harberts: Do you have any comments with regard to Lots 1 thru 5?
Conrad: Well I don't get it. You know I guess I'm going to listen to Dave. He's the expert
around here. I think the applicant has a good point, moving some land around and dumping
1 9
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 1
it real close. I'd listen to that. But on the other hand, I think I have to pay attention to what ,
city staff feels is appropriate. I don't think that 5 lots is what I'd like to see there, just
basically, but I don't know what the right number is and I need, it's like I can't approve that
until I get some kind of a review of the area so that is in never, never land and therefore
handling it as an outlot was fine with me because then we'd have more time to take a look at
it.
Aanenson: ...whether or not based on the ... storm water management, sewer availability, sewer
and water. That was an issue of engineering. Plus we felt like, we're not sure there's ... that '
they're going to have a wetland if there's 5 lots so we said put them in an outlot. I guess
what we're saying is, put it in outlot just so there's an understanding that there is the 5 lots
there. We're saying we'll revisit that issue. We're not comfortable saying that there's 5 lots
there. Now as far as the soil between this block and the other block, there may be issues as
far as the wetlands. Some of those things too and how we cut across there as far as
balancing erosion issues. ,
Harberts: I just have a question if I could interject. Kate, with regard to that area though,
the Lots 1 thru 5. I guess I'm trying to look at it from the perspective of the applicant in
terms of, you know from dollars and cents. Is there a compromise here? I mean what we're
doing is asking them not to, well telling them they can't develop.
t' in the subdivision ordinance adequate road and you've of to have ade
Aanenson: But that's y g Q
sewer service available. We're saying that, engineering has said for that number of lots, this
approach isn't acceptable.
Harberts: So is there a compromise?
Aanenson: As far as balancing the soils?
Hempel: They're certainly capable of grading this site and trade dirt. I think they want to do
some house pad corrections on this Block 2. They have access to good material on Block 1
and they want to do a little trade of the two areas. That can be done under the proposal here
before you this evening. Expanded on the grading plans to show that.
Harberts: So you can't maybe have the premium but there's a middle of the road here and so
it's a decision then that they'd have to weigh. If they want premium, then you have to meet
the codes, which is good roads and all this. Whereas there may be an alternative, a choice.
Is that what I'm understanding?
0
10
I
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Hempel: That's correct. There is some compromise that we're able to work with them if
they need to get rid of the good soils and correct the house pads, they can certainly do that at
this time with this proposal.
Conrad: In conclusion, if the applicant doesn't accept the staff report, point number 11,
doesn't want it as an outlot, I want this tabled for staff to bring it back to review Block 2 in
further detail with the analysis that they'd have to put into that.
Mancino: And right now the applicant doesn't.
Conrad: We'll open it up to the applicant. I think the applicant can say hey I want that
platted.
Ledvina: You want a yes or a no tonight.
Conrad: I think it can sail through here if you're comfortable with an outlot. If you're not
comfortable with an outlot situation, then I'm going to have to table it.
Ken Adolf: The applicant is interested in moving this project along. Wants to get the site
improvements constructed late this summer and allow house construction to start this fall so
we really can't tolerate any delays. I guess if he had a choice of getting it approved tonight
with an outlot, we'd go along with that provided that he can do some grading on that outlot,
which would be Block 2. Which is designated as Block 2.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Matt.
' Ledvina: We talked a little bit about the grading and the definition of a bluff and you're
suggesting that the applicant, suggesting that the applicant follow the grading and structure
setback guidelines for designated bluff impact zone. So which areas on site meet the bluff
definition? It's on Lot 2, 3, 4, 5 on Block 1.
Generous: Yes, the rear of 3 and 4 where you have the steep slopes. Lot 15, 16, 17 and the
rear of 14 and 12. He can, we believe with the 20 foot front setback he can meet that, the
bluff guidelines.
Ledvina: For?
Generous: For all of them.
Ledvina: For all of them.
11
I-]
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Generous: Or be close. He'd be, it's a 30 foot setback from the top of a bluff that would be
impacted on.
Ledvina: Well for number 17, it would appear that the house pad is right in the, so that
wouldn't be, in that instance it would not meet the buildable criteria for the bluff impact
zone.
Mancino: So that would be a variance?
Generous: No, this isn't in a bluff impact zone. We were suggesting that he follow the
guidelines.
Aanenson: The bluff impact zone is what's being mapped on the city basically falls in the
southern portion of the city.
Mancino: But it is by all definition, is a bluff impact zone. How can it not be in one?
Ledvina: So if the criteria were applied that we've used in the southern part of the city in
looking at the house placements here, it doesn't appear that Lot 17 would be a buildable lot.
Is that?
Generous: If he can push the house pad further to the east, and he's not in the bluff zone,
but then he's down in the low area and the treed area that we wanted to preserve. You need,
what is it, a 30% grade.
Ledvina: But then is he, would he be into the wetland setback zone there?
Generous: No, because he would be able to transfer his average on that lot to one of the
other sites. And we believe this is a better placement for the house. As far west as he can
go on that lot.
Ledvina: Right. But at the same time it's constructed in the side slope of that bluff area.
Okay. I don't know. I'm on the fence as far as that lot is concerned.
Mancino: On what, 17?
Ledvina: Yeah. In some aspects, in some respects I feel that the pad placement should not
be allowed on that slope. But maybe I can get back to that. Or let some of the other
commissioners have, expand their ideas on that. Let's see here. Talking about the reduced
setbacks. Let's see. You're recommending 20 feet and the standard is 30 feet. Looking at
the layout of the lots, I think that makes sense for Lots 3, 4, 5 and the other lots around there.
12
n
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
But I guess on Lot 2, I'm thinking about the existing home that's there. That setback that
will be set back quite a bit of distance off that road and I'm thinking about maybe a transition
between the existing home and the other house pad that would be there. So I would propose
that we have a 25 foot setback for Lot 2 as the minimum setback and I think there's some
room in there where we won't infringe on that bluff zone. Do you have any comments on
that?
Generous: No, I don't... It's mostly for convenience that they do this.
Ledvina: Right.
Generous: And I don't know if he wanted to have similar designs.
Ledvina: Well but I think again with the existing residence there and it seems to make
reasonable sense to provide a transition there. I know there's quite a bit of distance between
the residents and that, and the house on Lot 2 but still, it might make sense. Just a general
question for staff. For Lot 2, where are we measuring the rear setback? There's this little leg
that goes to the, and I get my directions off here because it goes toward Block 2. On Lot 2,
Block 1. Yeah, that little flag. Where would the rear setback be measured from?
Generous: We'd use this side for ... we're proposing that this be included in the preservation
areas.
Ledvina: Okay. I was just wondering about those types of lots. How you look at them.
Okay. On condition number 27. Have we done a tree survey?
Generous: Yes. It's included on this plan.
Ledvina: Which plan is it on?
Generous: It shows up in all of them.
Ledvina: It's the canopy coverage?
Generous: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. And that gives us what we need to define that zone? Okay.
Generous: Yeah. He's supposed to provide us the calculations...
13
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Ledvina: Okay. And as it relates to Block 2, I would support platting that as an outlot at '
this time. I think that's a reasonable approach there.
Mancino: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: Just a question before I start on my comments. Did I hear this right? This is
going to be handed back to city staff or we're going to treat this as an outlot and they're
going to grade on it? We're approving this as a grading plan or?
Aanenson: There is a adin plan included. ,
�' g P
Hempel: It's my understanding that we're going to allow them to grade this outlot, or excuse
me, this Block 2 which we want to see as an outlot. With this overall development at this
time.
Farmakes: Okay. You're comfortable with that?
Hempel: Yes I am. I I
Farmakes: Okay. I don't have a problem with the 25 setback. This is a difficult chunk of
property to develop. I'm wondering however when this goes before the City Council, is there
a net square footage in here? That's buildable. Buildable square footage in regards to these
lots? I'm just making a comment. I see various square feet but it doesn't say, it seems to
reflect what is on the sheet 1. Total square footage.
Generous: Well there's 1.89 acres of wetland.
Farmakes: No, I was talking about per lot. I'm just wondering.
Generous: Yeah, the net was 23.294 average.
Farmakes: Okay, an average lot. I'm just wondering, when this goes up to the city, if you
would calculate out each lot as to what the buildable square footage is per lot because I'
would calculate on some of these with the lot is a majority of which either there's a tree
preservation or wetland. It probably comes close to being pretty substandard.
Generous: I believe that's because we got them to agree to designate these areas.
Technically he could build within those tree preservation areas. '
Farmakes: Yeah, well I'm wondering why isn't this a PUD. I'm must curious.
14
I LJ
. I
LI
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Generous: Didn't need it. He met the subdivision ordinance.
Farmakes: I don't have a problem with the variance. I don't see how they're going to
develop this property otherwise. I don't know if you're familiar with the property, if you
want to look at it but it's a lot of rolling hills that are kind of cow pasture in the woods, is
what it is.
Mancino: Horse pasture. Horses.
Farmakes: Horse pasture, yeah. The Jenson's. I think it's a reasonable plan for that
property, as difficult as it is. So I have no problem if you want to table this otherwise or
send it on. If they're happy with that and the city staff's happy with that, move it on.
Mancino: And the applicant said they would rather have Block 2 be an outlot and keep going
so. That's it? Anything else? Bob, I have a question for you. On page 9 of the staff report
you talk about Lot 9, Block 1. If the applicant had not followed the staff's recommendation
and it shifted the building pad further up the hill to minimize grading and tree loss.
However, you still believe that this portion of the property is very steep and wooded and
should be evaluated further and quite possibility eliminate one of the lots in accordance with
staff's previous recommendations.
Generous: I'll defer to Dave on that one.
Mancino: So tell me about Lot 9, Block 1.
Hempel: Chairman Mancino. That was one of the flag Iots that they have on the cul -de -sac.
We initially did some playing around with lot lines and a regular house pad further up on the
hill, we felt that they were in a sense ... Lot 9 is probably no different than what you see on
Lot 15 and it's much better than Lot 17 obviously so there's some warrants or merits for
keeping the lot as proposed.
Mancino: Okay. How long's this cul -de -sac?
Generous: Pardon me?
Mancino: How long is the cul -de -sac?
Hempel: Based on the plat, I would say it's between 600 and 700 feet.
Mancino: Okay. And public safety wise you're okay with that?
15
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Hempel: Public safety, yes. I
Mancino: I know this is a hard lot.
Hempel: It's a very difficult piece to develop. You have a parcel on the north that has a
P rY P P P
home between that property and a knoll. You have Curry Farms to the east which ... street
access. You have the wetlands and the steeper bluff to the west. It's really a difficult piece.
Mancino: Do you feel that there should be a connection with the property north of this? I
mean I know that you're allowing some easement from Yosemite but should there be a ,
connection going to the north?
Hempel: There's pretty difficult grades going up to the north through those trees and so forth
and the location of the existing home on that site probably... best location in where to extend
the road so all those parameters, it made more sense to approach it from Yosemite in the
future when that parcel wishes to develop. I believe this plat at this time is dedicating half ,
the right -of -way for that parcel so it is not land locked totally. Bob, correct me if I'm wrong.
Generous: Yeah, 30 feet.
Mancino: Okay. My only other comment would be much like Matt's on Lot 17. It's just a
lot of, it's so close to that bluff area that I have problems with that too. And it seems like
what, there will be massive retaining walls there?
Generous: No, I think what they're talking about is building the baseboard down to the
bottom of the slope and digging in towards the knoll.
Mancino: So Y ou won't have a bluff at all? You'll just have the back of the house.
Generous: Yes. I
Mancino: So you will have eliminated the bluff completely. With a house right where the
bluff would be. I
Ledvina: Into the bluff, yeah. Which is what we're trying to avoid by that exact scenario. I
mean it's not just a variance from the setback from the top, which is something I could look
at, but we're actually talking about building the thing right into the bluff.
Mancino: Yeah. That is concern for me too. Do I have a motion? ,
16 1 �
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
' Harberts: I would consider making the motion. I just wanted to, I guess if I was to make the
motion I would recommend that it be forwarded onto the City Council you know with the
understanding of that outlot and grading but I would want, I guess I'm just wondering with
you two, with regard to your Lot 17, I guess I'm alright with it but, and then I guess I would
just note the cul -de -sac. If it's 600 to 700, the ordinance I believe that we established is 600
maximum so it's just noting that. Given the fact that Dave said it kind of is a, probably a
' compromise given the topography, etc that you're dealing with.
Mancino: I have it's, the other variances that are required on this to build on I think are fine.
' I just really have a problem with taking out a whole bluff ...area. I mean it changes the
character.
I Harberts: When you look at overall what's being achieved, do you give up that piece because
of everything else that's being saved or protected or whatever.
Farmakes: In that particular bluff area, you can't even see it from the road. It's just goes
down. You can see the wetland down below but it goes down pretty fast.
Mancino: So if you go there it's like, well can you really put a house here? I mean there
doesn't seem to be enough land to put it there.
Harberts: To do it. But as long as that's an engineering, building problem isn't it?
Ledvina: I think it's an environmental issue.
Mancino: Environmental issue.
' Farmakes: Yeah and I think with the variance that you're allowing them, they make it in.
On those particular two lots. Otherwise they'd be under the, to the wetland I think, or close
' to it.
Conrad: Matt, what would be your justification for not allowing Lot 17? How would you?
Ledvina: Well it is in a bluff zone and the city has taken steps to, and passed ordinances to
protect these types of areas. The fact that this specific area is not designated as bluff is
essentially an oversight by the city. I think we should correct that here.
Conrad: And the purpose of preserving bluffs would be what? In this area.
Ledvina: For aesthetic reasons. For erosion control. Basically those two reasons.
17
1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994 1
Conrad: Do you think, is it the same as the other bluffs like when we're talking about the '
Minnesota River.
Ledvina: Well not when the vistas are miles. I don't think that's the scenario here.
Mancino: But you do look over the entire wetland and the whole area. I mean you do have I
a view when you're up there. It's not the expanses of something else. So the motion?
Harberts: I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. '
That we recommend that the City Council approve Subdivision #94-4 and Rezoning #94 -2
rezoning the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential,
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, preliminary plat approval creating 17 dots and
one outlot on 15.99 acres of land, approve a 10 foot side setback variance from the 20 foot
side setback requirements for flag lots for Lots 5, 9 and 10, Block 1, and grant a variance of
10 feet from the 30 foot front setback requirement for Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 and a 25
foot front setback requirement for Lot 2, Block 1 to permit a 20 foot, help me with this one
Bob.
Generous: Permit a 20 foot...
Harberts: Okay, let me restate that last portion. And grant a variance of 10, no.
Generous: You're 10 feet from the 30 foot setback for Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 and a 5
foot, to permit a setback of 20 feet in the 5 foot front setback variance from the 30 foot '
setback requirement for Lot 2, Block 1 to permit a 25 foot setback.
Harberts: Subject to the following conditions as outlined in items number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 would require
the calculation of buildable space on each lot. That information to move forward to the City
Council. I think that was it. And we noted that Lot 2, Block 1 was the transition ... so that '
does not require a separate condition does it?
Generous: The only, condition 5 has been resolved.
Mancino: So that can be deleted.
Harberts: Okay, so item 5 would be deleted and the following conditions renumbered
accordingly. I
Mancino: Do I have a second?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
' Hempel: Madam Chairman, if I could make one point of clarification on condition number 2.
The storm water assessment fee was revised based on the acreage. If we could revise the
acreage from 14 acres down to 13.1 which results in a storm water assessment fee of
$25,938.00.
Mancino: Do you accept the friendly amendment?
Harberts: Yes, for number 2.
i Hempel: Thank you.
Conrad: I second the motion.
Mancino: Any discussion?
t Conrad: Yeah. Staff, what's the rationale for prohibiting that building on the steep slope? Is
it justified?
' Aanenson: Well the reason we have it on the southern portion of the city as well as for this
one is erosion control... runoff from the rooftop into the bluff and erosion underneath it.
Conrad: And can that be dealt with engineering wise or is it, I'm trying to assess. I think
the point is real valid here. I'm just not sure what our rationale is.
Hempel: Commissioner Conrad, we have addressed similar areas, Fox Path is one area.
Lundgren development... steep slopes. Watershed department, the Watershed District is
' required to do individual grading to drainage plans and that those lots be approved by the
Watershed as well when they come through for building permits to insure that the roof
drainage is being dealt with properly. So it will not create an erosion problem. Another
option I guess here is to relocate that house down on Lot 17 further to the east but that's
going to impact those trees with buffering in neighborhoods so.
' Mancino: You know what's going to happen when a developer or a development comes in
that's actually on a bluff. I mean a bigger bluff let's say. I mean at what point do you say
that it's a bigger bluff so we don't want a house built into it versus one that isn't? I mean
how are we going to.
Aanenson: We have noticed for the next Planning Commission... bluff ordinance city wide so
we will be looking at that... When the plat comes in and it meets the definition of a bluff, we
will apply those standards.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Ledvina: So why isn't that being done here? I
Aanenson: We asked that. It's not an ordinance right now. We asked them to locate it...as '
Dave indicated, that we resolve that working with the Watershed. It's really an issue of, if
you want to get right next to the bluff for views and the extra runoff from the rooflines so as
Dave indicated, we've got cooperation of the Watershed to make sure that we try to mitigate
that issue.
Ledvina: So would you recommend that we include a condition that the.
Aanenson: That might be appropriate way to do it. That this lot meet Watershed approval.
Hempel: That it submits an individual grading and drainage plan, erosion control plan in
P � g
conjunction with the building permit application. Being reviewed also by the Watershed
District. i
Harberts: Isn't that part of the approvals process anyway?
Hempel: We look at each individual building permit as it comes through. We don't
necessarily require a detailed grading plan or erosion control plan. What they're going to do
with the roof drainage and so forth.
Ledvina: Would you accept that as a friendly amendment? Condition number 29.
Harberts: Sure.
i
Mancino: So we do have a second. ,
Ledvina: Hold on one second. Let's see. We should, where I believe that condition number
20 should be changed to be consistent and I would suggest the following language. The 25
foot front setback is granted, or I should say allowed for Lot 2, Block 1 and a 20 foot front
setback is allowed on Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 etc.
Mancino: Do you also want to change in that, staff encourages the developer, or do you want
to take that out?
Ledvina: Well, if there's other areas, no I'd like to keep that in there. If there's other areas
in the development that setbacks or some other standards might be applied to benefit the bluff
zone, I'd certainly like to see that so. Also on number 111 would propose that we change
the terminology of that to, from should to shall as it relates to the oudot.
20
r1
.I
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Mancino: Diane, do you accept?
Harberts: Yep.
Mancino: Anything else? Okay. We're done with discussion.
Conrad: Nancy, the motion 29. It's not the motion but condition 29. Dave, you kind of
worded that. Could you say it again for me? In fact, I really want it to be extremely tight.
If we build there, it's just got to be engineered so well that we protect the environmental
things that we're concerned with. I think it's taking advantage on this site. I don't think the
site should have a house but I don't really think we have the ordinance to say no right now.
But I do think we have, we can make it extremely. I just want it worded Dave so that we
have all the controls in there so we are not furthering any kind of erosion or pollution or
whatever. Runoff that's not controlled because it's such a unique site.
' Hempel: Would you like for me to attempt?
1 Conrad: Yeah, would you.
Hempel: In conjunction with submittal of a building permit application for Lot 17, Block 1,
the applicant shall submit a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan subject to the
Watershed District's approval prior to issuance of any building permits.
Mancino: Thank you. Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. Any other discussion?
Any other friendly amendments? Then let's vote.
Harberts moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve Subdivision #94 -4 and Rezoning 94 -2 rezoning the property from
RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential, consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, preliminary plat approval creating 17 lots and one outlot on 15.99
acres of land, approve a 10 foot side setback variance from the 20 foot side setback
requirement for flag lots for Lots S, 9, and 10, Block 1, and grant a variance of 10 feet
' from the 30 foot front setback requirement for Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 to permit a
twenty foot front setback, and a S foot front setback variance from the 30 foot setback
requirement for Lot 2, Block 1 to permit a 2S foot setback, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality /quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
21
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre- developed and post -
developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events. Normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations
between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch
basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be
based on Walker's Pondnet model.
2. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of
$25,938.00 assuming 13.1 acres of developable land. Water quality assessments will be
waived if the applicant constructs an on -site Walker pretreatment basin. These fees will
be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site.
SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by
City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to
final plat.
3. Stormwater runoff from Lot 16 and the access road is shown to discharge to Lake Lucy
Road. The applicant shall demonstrate that the runoff from this portion of land can be
handled by the existing drainage system on Lake Lucy Road. Detailed storm calculations
shall be provided to the City Engineer.
4. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during
construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer.
5. Deleted.
6. The existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 will be required to connect to City water once the
well on the property fails.
7. The applicant shall work with staff in determining the most feasible location to extend
sanitary sewer and water services to the north (Stewart parcel).
8. The grading plan shall be revised to limit the house types on Lots 2, 3, 6 and 7, Block 1
to rambler style homes and Lots 4, 5, 8 and 13, Block 1 to side /corner walkout type
dwelling. The lot grading on Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 shall be revised to maintain the
existing "sheet flow" to the west. Concentrated or funnelled runoff shall be prohibited.
9. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in
accordance with City and/or State codes.
22
n
I I
�l
I �
n
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
' 10. The stormwater retention pond shall be relocated further to the northeast on Lots 10
and 11. The storm sewer system between Lots 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be redirected
within the proposed street and combined into one discharge point on Lot 11, Block 1.
' 11. Lots 1 through 5 Block 2 shall la k f
g be platted as an outlot due to the lac o adequate
utilities and street. This outlot would not be subdividable or buildable until Yosemite
Road is upgraded to the City's urban standard, municipal sanitary sewer and water is
extended adjacent to the parcel, and wetland setback and buffer area issues are
resolved.
12. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat.
The minimum easement width should be 20 feet.
13. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements
and compliance of the conditions of approval.
' 14. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and
formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration.
15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed
District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies
and comply with their conditions of approval.
16. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and
disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading
unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate
otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
1
17. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
18. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction
begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
23
1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
19. Prior to the final plat approval, a Woodland Management Plan and Tree preservation
Plan must be developed by a landscape professional pursuant to section 18 -61(d) of
the City Code. This plan must be submitted to the city for staff approval.
20. A 25 foot front setback is allowed on Lot 2, Block 1 and a 20 foot front setback is
allowed on Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 to move the building pads away from the top
of the slope and to preserve trees. The applicant shall incorporate retaining walls and
custom grading to assure that slopes and trees are minimally impacted. Staff
encourages the developer to incorporate bluff protection guidelines in the development.
21. Pay park and trail fees as specified by city ordinance.
22. Submit revised utility plans for approval of locations of fire hydrants. Fire hydrant
spacing is 300 foot maximum.
23. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Submit turning radius and cul -de -sac dimensions to the City Engineer and Fire
Marshal for approval.
Advise Fire Marshal of the status of water main and fire hydrant placement and
spacing on Yosemite Avenue, west of Lots 1 - 5, Block 2.
Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of house pads, using standard
designations, and lowest level floor and garage elevations prior to final plat approval.
The tree preservation areas shall be delineated on the final grading plan as part of the
final plat approval. The tree preservation areas in Lots 2, 3, 11, 12, 14, and 15 shall
be re- evaluated and either be revised or realigned to avoid the grading areas, or have
the grading plan revised to stay out of the tree preservation areas, or have the
woodland management plan address the replanting of these areas.
Calculations for buildable space on each lot be forwarded to the City Council.
29. In conjunction with submittal of a building permit application for Lot 17, Block
1, the applicant shall submit a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan
subject to the Watershed District's approval prior to issuance of any building
permits.
24
I I
1
'j�
L
I1
D
f
r
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
INTERIM USE PERMIT REQUEST TO GRADE 46.56 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS,
TANDEM PROPERTIES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jim Ostenson 7808 Creekridge Circle, Bloomington
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Dick Putnam Tandem Properties
Dennis Marhula Westwood Engineering
Dave Nikolay 8500 Tigua Circle
Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Harberts: I have a question for staff. Maybe this is a Kate question. Do we usually, the
Planning Commission, get these grading plans?
Aanenson: Yes, we've done on it projects where there's timing ... Byerly's. We did it on
Target.
Ledvina: Oak Pond.
Aanenson: Where they're trying to keep the project moving.
Farmakes: There's been some movement on, since we sent it forward. There appears to be
fewer units to the south, is that correct?
Aanenson: He may want to comment, that is yes.
Farmakes: City Council.
Aanenson: Tabled it their first, to wait to get the Park recommendations...
Farmakes: But the plan—moved over to the east it looks like and enlarged. It looks like
there's fewer units there.
25