5. Oaks of Minnewashta Preliminary Plat and VariancesI i
I j
PC DATE: Ma y 18, 1994
June 15, 1994
CC DATE: July 11, 1994
CASE #: 93 -11 SLAB
STAFF REPORT
�a
1~
0
W
co
7
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 35.83 Acres into 44 Single Family Lots and a.
Neighborhood Park
North of Kings Road, west of Minnewashta Parkway to the Victoria City
Limits
Harstad Companies
2191 Silver Lake Road
New Brighton, MN 55112
Steve Johnston
Loucks and Associates
7200 Hemlock Lane
Maple Grove, MN 55369
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 35.83 acres (gross) 17.74 acres (net)
DENSITY: 1.2 units /acre gross 2.48 units /acre net
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N RSF, Single Family
.S - RSF, Single Family
E - RSF, Single Family
W - Victoria
Actfo7i 5Y W Administrator
Endorsed._ --�=
Nedif
0
nft_ - 7 - !o -'?4
Yes Submitted to Commission
00 Submitted to Council
7 -N -5y
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has a varied topography with the high point running
north and south through the center of the plat. There is a
significant stand of trees in the northwest corner of the site.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
Harstad Companies
anies p
May 18, 1993 '
June 15, 1994
Page 2
PROPOSAL SUMMARY ,
Harstad Companies is requesting approval to plat 35.38 acres of property into 44 lots an 8
acre park and one outlot. The property is located north of Kings Road and south of the
Stratford Ridge Subdivision and the Hallgren property. There are three underlying parcels in
the proposed subdivision: Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla. This property is currently zoned '
Residential Single Family (RSF). The City of Victoria borders the western limits of the
subdivision and Lake Minnewashta borders the eastern property limits.
Harstad Development proposed a subdivision for 57 lots in February, 1994. This subdivision '
request was denied by the Planning Commission. The applicant had requested that the City
Council table action on this subdivision request and allow them the opportunity to resolve '
the design issues with this plat. The new plat dated May 1, 1994 has been substantially
revised and to reflect the design issues raised with the previous plats. This plat was tabled
by the Planning Commission at their meeting on May 18, 1994. Since that meeting, the plat
has been revised to include 6 additional lots. Not all of the lots meet the 20,000 square foot i
minimum. There are 5 lots that are partially within the 1,000 foot Shoreland District that are
under 20,000 square feet. The DNR has stated that as long as the lot average in the
Shoreland District is over 20,000 square feet, the plat meets the intent of the ordinance and
they would recommend approval. The minimum lot size average in the district is 20,870
square feet with 125 foot frontage. '
The other change in the plat includes the reduction in the size of the park from 11 acres to 8
acres and the relocation of the storm water pond to the back of Lots 2 -6, Block 3. The ,
revised plat goes further on preserving existing topography and natural features.
One of the issues with the previous plat was the location of the park. This subdivision '
includes an 8 acre park located on the corner of Kings road and Minnewashta Parkway.
The staff finds the design of the subdivision superior to the previous one submitted by '
Harstad Development. The engineer has delineated the wetland and field checked the
shoreland jurisdiction line. The line is now located further to the north than the previous ,
plats for this area.. Thus, there are more lots with the 20,000 square foot minimum
requirement. In addition, the lots proposed to be south of Kings Road are unbuildable based
on delineation of the wetland. One issue of concern is the amount of tree loss with the '
subdivision. Staff is recommending compliance with the new woodland management plan to
replace tree loss during construction. Another issue which has been partially resolved is the
right -of -way for Kings Road. The applicant is proposing to dedicate 50 feet of right -of -way,
the additional 10' will be acquired from the south when that property subdivides.
i
n
LJ
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994
Page 3
Staff is recommended changing the street layouts in the northeast corner of the subdivision.
Access has been provided to the Hallgren, Wenzel and Headla properties via the extension of
White Oak Lane. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with minor
changes.
BACKGROUND - Proposed Plat
Harstad Companies is requesting to plat 35.83 acres of property into 44 lots. The property is
located north of Kings Road and south of the Stratford Ridge Subdivision and the Hallgren
property. There are three underlying parcels in the proposed subdivision: Ziegler, Wenzel
and Headla. This property is currently zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The City of
Victoria borders the western limits of the subdivision and Lake Minnewashta borders the
eastern property limits. A portion of the Ziegler property is located south of Kings Road.
This parcel is 199 feet wide and approximately 500 feet deep, and a large portion of this
property is undeveloped because of wetlands. The developer's engineer has delineated the
wetland edge. Staff finds that this property is unbuildable based on the front yard and
wetland setback requirements.
All adjacent zoning to this site is RSF except for the land in Victoria which is zoned rural
density, or 1 unit per ten acres. There are no wetlands on the site except for the wetland
adjacent to Lake St. Joe which affects one lot which staff is indicating as unbuildable. There
are three large parcels adjacent to this development, the Headla, Hallgren and Wenzel
properties. Future access to these parcels needs to be considered as a part of this plat.
II
The site has a varied topography, changing in elevation over 40 feet. The high point of the
site runs north and south through the center of the parcel. The site is primarily grass with a
few scattered trees. There is a mature stand of trees located on the northwest corner of the
site.
The subdivision includes 44 building lots, an 8 acre park and an outlot. Outlot A is located
south of Kings Road and is unbuildable due to the wetland setback requirements. The 8 acre
park is located at the corner of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. Phase II of the plat
includes 4 lots that have access via Kings Road. This portion of the road will not be
developed. Until there is a public street built to city standards, these 4 lots shall remain as an
outlot. A portion of the park (' i acre) is located east of Minnewashta Parkway. This lake
frontage area is not large enough to qualify for a recreational beachlot. The minimum
standards for a beachlot are 200 feet of lake frontage with 30,000 square feet of lot area.
The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that this area be used for swimming
only.
I
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994 '
Page 4
Lake St. Joe is just to the south of Kings Road. The lake has been designated as a Natural '
Environmental Lake by the DNR. Compliance with the Shoreland Regulations would
mandate that all lots within 1,000 feet of the shoreland must have an average minimum of
20,000 square feet with an average 125 -foot lot width (Sec. 20- 477[b]). The RSF standards,
which is the underlying zoning, requires all lots to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet with
a front yard lot width of 90 feet for the front yard. The Shoreland 1000 foot jurisdiction line '
has been delineated for this subdivision. There are 22 lots that fall within the Shoreland
Regulations. All lots meet the Shoreland Regulations.
Bill Thibault, the Planning Consultant with the City of Victoria, has reviewed the previous '
subdivision and made the following comments: Kings Road should be extended, and if it is
not, the provision for a road running north and south along the westerly property line should
be considered. Staff has reviewed this request and believes it is not feasible due to the
wetland that exists west of this development. At this time, Kings Road is proposed to be
extended to intersect with Country Oaks Road to act as the local collector street for this I
subdivision.
LANDSCAPINGIMEE PRESERVATION I
There is a significant stand of trees located in the northwest corner of the plat, just south of
the Hallgren property. Staff had recommended that a tree survey (Sec. 18 -40, [2f]) be '
submitted with the plat. The survey identifies the majority of the trees are maple and oaks
with the largest being 36 inch caliper for each species. There are some ash, box elder, and
basswood scattered through the area. The applicant's engineer has redesigned the sanitary '
sewer to serve this area and employed the use of a private driveway. This enables the grades
to be left alone in the northwest corner of the site, thus, saving the trees.
Staff has applied the new woodland management plan to the subdivision section 18.61(d)(2). '
The total area development (not including park land) of the plat is 24.83 acres. The total
canopy cover is approximately 4.5 acres. The applicant base line canopy is 20%. The ,
applicant is required to maintain 25%. An addition of 5% of canopy is required to be
replaced. This equates to 52 additional trees. Because the subdivision proposes to take out
trees that would have met the canopy coverage, the developer is required to prepare a '
woodland management plan. The replacement plan must designate an area at least I' i times
the removed canopy coverage area that shall be planted with replacement trees for those '
removed. This results in 60 additional trees to be planted.
Staff is recommending that the applicant prepare a woodland management plat. At a
minimum of the 112 trees required for replacement, 2 trees per lot should be required. The
remaining trees could be placed in a streetscape plan or in a newly created wooded area.
i
' Streetscape, as per the city's landscaping ordinance, shall be required along Minnewashta
Parkway and Kings Road (Sec. 18- 61[5]). The majority of the streetscape will be
accomplished with the development of the park.
' GRADING & DRAINAGE
i
7
LJ
�
The city half - section maps indicated a 33 -foot wide right -of -way for Kings Road. However,
after further research by the city attorney's office, it appears the city has not been conveyed
the necessary right -of -way as shown on the half - section maps. The city attorney's office has
advised in cases such as this where the existing gravel road has been maintained (i.e. snow
plowing, grading, etc.) by the city for over six years, the public right -of -way for Kings Road
generally be limited to the travelled portion of the land along with the shoulder or any land
utilized as support for public right -of -way. In this situation, Kings Road has been maintained
by the city for over the six-year period. The width of Kings Road varies from 20 feet to 23
feet, thus limiting the public right -of -way use to this area. The existing roadway meanders
back and forth within the 33 -foot wide strip of proposed right -of -way. At the west end of
Kings Road the roadway is entirely outside the 33 -foot right -of -way. The applicant is
proposing to dedicate 50 feet of right -of -way north of the existing gravel road (Kings Road)
between Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road and 30 feet of right -of -way west of
Country Oaks Road to the city limits. Staff has compromised the 60 -foot wide right -of -way
along Kings Road at this time since the 50 -foot wide right -of -way proposed exceeds what
would typically be required along a shared or common street. Normally the city would only
require dedication of half the right -of -way which would have been 30 feet when the parcels to
the south subdivide. At that time, the city can require dedication of the additional 10 feet of
right -of -way.
The preliminary grading plan proposes to grade a majority of the site. Due to the size of the
parcel and substandard Kings Road, it is anticipated that the applicant will proceed with two
phases. The grading of Kings Road appears to be reduced significantly. This was
accomplished by increasing the street grades up to 10 %. The grading plans do not indicate
the grading limits or impact to the parcel south of Kings Road. The applicant's engineer has
indicated to staff the grading would be limited to within the right -of -way except where the
storm sewer is extended to Lake St. Joe. The proposed street grades range from 0.50% to
10% which exceeds the city's requirements; however, in an effort to minimize tree loss, we
believe it is warranted. The city has allowed up to 10% street grades in an effort to minimize
grading and tree removal. Consideration has been given to Kings Road street grades in an
effort to reduce impact to the properties to the south. At this time, slope or construction
easements appear not to be necessary from the properties to the south. The developer's
engineer has to redesign White Oak Lane cul -de -sac in an effort to reduce grading and tree
loss by use of a private driveway at the end as well as redesigning the sanitary sewer service.
IF_
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993 _
'
June 15, 1994
Page 5
' Streetscape, as per the city's landscaping ordinance, shall be required along Minnewashta
Parkway and Kings Road (Sec. 18- 61[5]). The majority of the streetscape will be
accomplished with the development of the park.
' GRADING & DRAINAGE
i
7
LJ
�
The city half - section maps indicated a 33 -foot wide right -of -way for Kings Road. However,
after further research by the city attorney's office, it appears the city has not been conveyed
the necessary right -of -way as shown on the half - section maps. The city attorney's office has
advised in cases such as this where the existing gravel road has been maintained (i.e. snow
plowing, grading, etc.) by the city for over six years, the public right -of -way for Kings Road
generally be limited to the travelled portion of the land along with the shoulder or any land
utilized as support for public right -of -way. In this situation, Kings Road has been maintained
by the city for over the six-year period. The width of Kings Road varies from 20 feet to 23
feet, thus limiting the public right -of -way use to this area. The existing roadway meanders
back and forth within the 33 -foot wide strip of proposed right -of -way. At the west end of
Kings Road the roadway is entirely outside the 33 -foot right -of -way. The applicant is
proposing to dedicate 50 feet of right -of -way north of the existing gravel road (Kings Road)
between Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road and 30 feet of right -of -way west of
Country Oaks Road to the city limits. Staff has compromised the 60 -foot wide right -of -way
along Kings Road at this time since the 50 -foot wide right -of -way proposed exceeds what
would typically be required along a shared or common street. Normally the city would only
require dedication of half the right -of -way which would have been 30 feet when the parcels to
the south subdivide. At that time, the city can require dedication of the additional 10 feet of
right -of -way.
The preliminary grading plan proposes to grade a majority of the site. Due to the size of the
parcel and substandard Kings Road, it is anticipated that the applicant will proceed with two
phases. The grading of Kings Road appears to be reduced significantly. This was
accomplished by increasing the street grades up to 10 %. The grading plans do not indicate
the grading limits or impact to the parcel south of Kings Road. The applicant's engineer has
indicated to staff the grading would be limited to within the right -of -way except where the
storm sewer is extended to Lake St. Joe. The proposed street grades range from 0.50% to
10% which exceeds the city's requirements; however, in an effort to minimize tree loss, we
believe it is warranted. The city has allowed up to 10% street grades in an effort to minimize
grading and tree removal. Consideration has been given to Kings Road street grades in an
effort to reduce impact to the properties to the south. At this time, slope or construction
easements appear not to be necessary from the properties to the south. The developer's
engineer has to redesign White Oak Lane cul -de -sac in an effort to reduce grading and tree
loss by use of a private driveway at the end as well as redesigning the sanitary sewer service.
IF_
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994 ,
Page 6
DRAINAGE AREAS '
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. Detailed runoff and
ponding calculations will be required as a part of the final review process. The water quality
portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus '
concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate condition 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.
The site is divided into two drainage subdistricts with the westerly one quarter of the site '
draining west into wetlands located within the City of Victoria. These wetlands are part of
the Lake St. Joe basin and drain into Lake St. Joe from the west. Currently, the city's '
subdivision ordinance requires that the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision be
retained at the pre - developed runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. The storm
drainage plan should also be analyzed by the applicant's engineer in order to meet the city's '
Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP calls for a sediment and nutrient
pond in the south central portion of the site to pretreat approximately 16.5 acres of runoff
(SWMP drainage area LM A7.4). Ponding must meet Walker's Pondnet standards before it is ,
discharged off -site. Ponding locations are flexible, however, the city prefers that the number
of ponds be kept to a minimum for maintenance purposes. Storm water calculations for the
sediment and nutrient ponds need to be submitted for review and approval in conjunction with '
the final plat submittal. The plans propose a series of catch basins to convey storm water
runoff generated from the streets and lots within the development to a series of ponds. One
regional pond is located just west of the park site. A smaller pond will also be needed on the
park site southeast of the regional pond. This pond is necessary to collect runoff from Kings
Road due to elevation differences between the two drainage areas. Two other small ponds are
proposed at the end of Red Oak Lane. Staff has requested the applicant's engineer to ,
consolidate these two ponds into one. The ponds should be designed with 4:1 slopes overall
or 10:1 slopes for the first 10 feet with 3:1 slopes thereafter for safety and water quality
purposes. The final design of all ponding areas shall be determined prior to final platting.
The city has had some discussions with the applicant's engineer regarding the upgrade and
funding of Kings Road. Since the majority of frontage along Kings Road will be adjacent to
the parkland, the city could consider a 429 improvement project for the upgrade of Kings
Road. It would be the city's intent to assess only the benefitting parcels along the north side I
i
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994
' Page 7
of Kings Road between Minnewashta Parkway and the proposed street, Country Oaks Road,
' at this time. In the future as the parcels to the south and west develop and connect to
municipal sewer and water, they would be charged connection and hookup fees accordingly.
It is staff's understanding the applicant would be responsible for 100% of the cost of
' constructing Kings Road adjacent the development approximately 225, feet plus 50% of the
cost of Kings Road east of Lot 7, Block 2 and 50% of the costs of the lift station. In order to
initiate the 429 improvement project, the applicant would need to petition the city to consider
' authorizing this project. Since technically there are only the two benefitting properties, if the
applicant waives their rights to a public hearing and assessment hearing, the process could be
' expedited and constructed yet this summer /fall. Without the upgrade of Kings Road between
Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road, this development is premature from an access
standpoint and should be denied.
' UTILITIES
' The site is capable of being serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and water by extending
utilities from Minnewashta Parkway along Kings Road. The plans have been revised in an
effort to limit grading and tree loss along Kings Road. The sewer line is now proposed to
' intersect the parkland. A lift station is also proposed at the westerly end of Kings Road. In
conjunction with the upgrade of Kings Road, sanitary sewer and water lines would be
constructed as well. Stubouts would be provided as well along Kings Road for the adjacent
undeveloped parcels to the south. There are two existing homes lying south of Kings Road
that will be within 150 feet of the proposed sanitary sewer line (Borris & Scott/Morgan).
Pursuant to city ordinance, these homes will be required to connect to the sanitary sewer line
' within 12 months from the time the lines become operational. Staff believes that these homes
should be required to connect to the lines in accordance to city ordinance due to
environmental reasons and close proximity to Lake St. Joe. However, these affected
' properties could request the city council grant them a variance to the ordinance. These
property owners will be required to pay a connection charge to the city of which a portion
may be refunded to the applicant for installation of the utilities. The exact amount to be
refunded will be determined based on construction bids and the feasibility study for upgrading
Kings Road.
' Upon quick review of the utility layout, it appears that fire hydrant placement will need to be
revised. Fire hydrant spacing should be in accordance with the city's fire marshal
' recommendations. Typically, fire hydrants are spaced 300 feet apart.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street and utility improvements will be
' required for review by staff and City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval.
The street and utility improvement shall be constructed in accordance with the city's latest
edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994 '
Page 8
enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to ,
guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval.
As with other typical city developments, the moisture content in the soil is relatively high and '
the city has employed the use of draintile behind the curbs for improving both road sub -base
drainage as well as providing a discharge point for household sump pumps. The applicant
should be aware that the city will be requiring with the street and utility construction to '
include a draintile system.
The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all ,
utilities and drainage areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement shall be a minimum
of 20 feet wide. The city will also require that all ponding areas be designed to provide '
access for maintenance equipment. The design shall be subject to approval by the City
Engineer.
EROSION CONTROL '
The grading plan does provide minimal erosion control measures (Type I); however, adjacent '
to all wetland areas the erosion control fence should be Type III. All site restoration and
erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook. Additional erosion control measures will be required during the new home '
construction process.
STREETS I
Access to the development is proposed via Kings Road which is a narrow gravel roadway
between 20 to 23 feet wide. Kings Road is proposed to be upgraded to urban standards to '
adequately address traffic and ordinance requirements (Sec. 18- 57[b]). The city's urban
standards consist of a 31 -foot wide back -to -back bituminous street section with concrete curb
and gutter. According to the ordinance, right -of -way shall be 60 feet wide. On Kings Road, '
the applicant is proposing to dedicate 50 feet of the normally required right -of -way which is
more than the city would normally require under this circumstance. The 33 feet of right -of-
way is not acceptable. ,
The site will eventually be connected into existing Country Oaks Road to the north once the
Hallgren parcel develops. On the east exists a combination of parcels (Headla/Wenzel) which '
could be further subdivided. Access to the Headla/Wenzel parcels is being considered at this
time through Stratford Lane. However, the Headla parcel which abuts Stratford Lane is only '
constructed for approximately 250 feet west of Minnewashta Parkway. When Stratford Ridge
was platted an Outlot B was created for future extension and deeded to the Stratford Ridge
Homeowners Association versus the city. Ms. Hallgren gains access to her property I
---
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994
Page 9
through/over this outlot. The applicant has redesigned White Oak Lane per staff's
recommendation and extended White Oak Lane east to the Wenzel parcel with the intention
of a future cul -de -sac and the Headla parcel would have two lots adjacent Stratford Lane and
the remaining parcel served via a private driveway. Until White Oak Lane is extended into
the Wenzel parcel, a temporary cul -de -sac should be provided. A temporary turnaround
easement will be required for the area outside the right -of -way. Staff has expressed these
options to Mr. Headla who preferred the extension of White Oak Lane to the Wenzel parcel.
White Oak Lane, west of Country Oaks Road, was shortened and a private driveway proposed
to serve the last four lots. The driveway is proposed at 20 feet wide. A 30 foot wide
easement for access and maintenance will also need to be provided.
Approximately one -half of the necessary right -of -way along Kings Road west of Country
Oaks Road is proposed to be dedicated (30 feet). Unless Kings Road right -of -way is
increased and the street constructed to meet city requirements (60 feet), Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4
must be platted as outlots. The city will not issue building permits for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4,
Block 1 until Kings Road is constructed to its full width and the entire width (60 feet) of
right -of -way has been dedicated to the city. Until this is done, these lots shall be platted as
an outlot. Access to the lots shall be from the interior streets versus Kings Road except Lots
1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1 which is proposed with Phase II. Staff has some concerns with this
future phase along Kings Road. Staff's concerns are the cost to upgrade Kings Road to an
urban street section. The cost to upgrade the street may exceed the assessable benefit to these
lots. The applicant should be required to provide the city with a security escrow to cover
their fair share of the construction to upgrade that section of Kings Road lying west of
Country Oaks Road or a conveyance placed on the deed that these lots will be responsible for
50% of the upgrade to Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road. The cost may be estimated
based on the costs of upgrading the portion of Kings Road east of Country Oaks Road.
Country Oaks Road, north of the Hallgren parcel, was constructed with a 6' wide bituminous
trail. Staff requests the applicant include a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the east side
of Country Oaks Road to provide continuity. The intersection of Country Oaks Road and
Kings Road has deficient sight distance. The applicant's engineer should shift the intersection
westerly and/or modify street grades to improve and meet MnDOT's sight distance
requirements.
PARK AND RECREATION
On January 25, 1994, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the previously proposed
Harstad Subdivision proposed for consideration of park and trail development. The
northwestern portion of the city had been identified as park deficient by the City's
Comprehensive Plan. As the previous applicant's (Heritage) subdivision development
evolved, the city retained Hoisington - Koegler Group to draft park studies for three defined
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994
Page 10
areas on the plat. A park site, 10 acres in size, was selected for the southeast corner of the
site. This proposal was submitted to the Park and Recreation Commission. At their
meeting, the Park and Recreation Commission made the following recommendation:
PARK: It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the
City Council approve the subdivision concept site plan as presented, with the inclusion
of acquisition of lakeshore property. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished
through park dedication (approximately 1.62 acres) and purchase (approximately 6.5
acres) contingent upon City Council approval. Full fee credit is to be granted as a part
of these negotiations.
TRAIL: It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the
City Council require as a condition of approval of the proposed Harstad Subdivision a
20 -foot trail easement connecting to the proposed Country Oaks Road with the park.
The applicant shall be compensated for such construction through the reduction of trail
fees with the remainder of the trail fees to be assessed as per city ordinance.
The revised plat has the park reduced to 8 acres in size. A portion of the property being
proposed for park purposes includes property located east of Minnewashta Parkway. This
property is approximately .50 acres. The property is very narrow and has approximately 500
feet of shoreline. The Park and Recreation Director, is recommending that this area be
included as a part of the park, to be maintained as a small, low impact swimming beach,
City Code does not allow the applicant to utilize this area as a recreational beachlot. By
taking ownership, both the new development and existing neighbors benefit.
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this most recent subdivision from Harstad at
their May 24, 1994 meeting. The commission supported the preliminary plat approval of the
park at the location shown. They will discuss further development of the park at their next
meeting on June 28, 1994.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Block 1
Lot Area
(20,000 s.f. required)
Street Frontage
(125' Required)
Lot Depth
125' Required)
Lot 1
20,216
125
125
Lot 2
20,161
125
125
Lot 3
20,063
147
137
F
n
�J
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994
' Page 11
I
I�
LJ
Lot 4
20,191
140
143
Lot 5
21,055
136
145
Block 1
Lot Area(15,000 s.f.
required)
Street Frontage
(90' Required)
Lot Depth
125' Required)
Lot 6
20,154
90
166
Lot 7
17,989
90
161
Lot 8
22,702
90
147
Lot 9
16,978
105
138
Block 1
Lot Area(20,000 s.f.
required)
Street Frontage
(125' Required)
Lot Depth
125' Required)
Lot 10
20,559
138
148
Lot 11
20,360
125
163
Lot 12
23,206
125
182
Lot 13
25,974
112
180
Lot 14
20,025
125
161
Block 1
Lot Area(15,000 s.f.
required)
Street Frontage
(90' Required)
Lot Depth
125' Required)
Lot 15
15, 160
101
150
Lot 16
15,000
95
156
Lot 17
15,040
95
158
Lot 18
15,007
90
175
Lot 19
19,123
90
150
Lot 20
15,022
107
141
Lot 21
19,074
136
140
Lot 22
29,699
136
220
Lot 23
25,630
140
216
Lot 24
T - 17,304
90
174
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994
Page 12
Lot 25
15,033
90
143
Lot 26
15,001
100
150
Lot 27
15,001
100
150
Lot 28
15,001
100
150
Lot 29
15,001
100
150
Block 2
Lot Area
(20,000 s.f. required)
Street Frontage
(125' Required)
Lot Depth
125' Required)
Lot 1
20,387
133
154
Lot 2
20,165
131
154
Lot 3
20,014
129
154
Lot 4
20,175
125
154
Lot 5
20,571
130
141
Lot 6
20,482
148
138
Lot 7
20,601
159
143
Lot 8
20,080
153
147
Block 3
Lot Area(15,000 s.f.
required)
Street Frontage
(90' Required)
Lot Depth
125' Required)
Lot 1
16,990
113
150
Lot 2
15,302
100
165
Lot 3
18,679
99
195
Lot 4
18,451
90
205
n
i
1
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994
Page 13
Phase 11 Block 1
Lot Area
(20,000 s.f. required)
Street F
Lot 1
20,155
113
165
Lot 2
20,881
113
133
Lot 3
21,280
133
133
I FINDINGS
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District lot dimension and area requirements. No variances are
being requested. Staff is proposing access via a private drive for four lots off
of White Oak Lane. The DNR supports the averaging of the lot sizes and
frontages in the Shoreland District.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
'
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. The
proposed density of the development is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
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. The conditions of the
staff report should mitigate all vegetation, soil and storm water issues.
' 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
P �1 P e, g
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure
as part of the improvements required of the subdivision.
The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
F
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994 '
Page 14
Finding: Staff is requesting the applicant provide a woodland management I
plan. This plan should preserve the integrity of the woodland canopy.
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.
d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems.
'
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban
_� P P P �1
infrastructure and is located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area
(MUSA) line. Kings Road will have to be built to city urban standards
'
between Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road in order for this
subdivision to go forward.
'
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
This item appeared before the Planning commission on May 18, 1994 and June 15, 1994.
,
The commission recommended tabling the subdivision upon its first review for several issues
including tree preservation, application of a private street to save trees and revision of the
'
park size. The commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat at its June 15
meeting based on a revised plat and with the conditions of approval. Property owners
adjacent to Kings Road still have concerns regarding tree preservation and sewer connection
assessments. Staff has indicated that assessments will have to be raised at the council level.
Staff believes that tree preservation along the south side of Kings Road can be resolved as the
plat develops.
,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves of the preliminary plat #93 -11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 44
'
single family lots as shown on the plans dated May 31, 1994, and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utilities and street within
all public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
'
II
�J
L�
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994
Page 15
Maintenance access routes shall be provided to all storm water ponding. The routes
are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site
grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate
otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod
or seed and wood fiber blanket.
3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and
utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council
approval.
4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies (i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR) and comply with
their conditions of approval.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
development contract.
6. No building permits shall be issued for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1 (phase II) until the
full 60 -foot wide right -of -way on Kings Road is dedicated to the City and the street is
constructed to urban standards. This area shall be platted as an outlot until the full
street is dedicated and built.
7. The applicant shall escrow with the City their fair share of the cost to extend Kings
Road west of Country Oaks Road or a conveyance placed on the deed that these lots
will be responsible for 50% of the cost to upgrade Kings Road west of Country Oaks
Road.
8. The applicant shall provide revised detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year
storm event and provide ponding calculations in accordance with the City's ordinance
for the city engineer to review and approval based on the approved final set of grading
and drainage plans. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate storm water
retention ponds in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire
hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart.
0
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994
Page 16
10. The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to I
the City for review.
11. All lots shall be prohibited to take direct access from Kings Road except for Phase II. '
12. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat
for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement shall ,
be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
13.
A temporary cul -de -sac should be constructed at the end of White Oak Lane east of
Country Oaks Road. The applicant shall dedicate to the city a temporary turnaround
easement for construction of the turnaround outside the right -of -way.
,
14.
A portion of the utility connection fees the City collects from the property owners
south of Kings Road may be refunded to the applicant. The exact reimbursement will
be determined based on actual construction costs for the installation of the utilities.
'
15.
The applicant/builder shall provide, at the time of building permit applicant, a tree
removal plan and grading plan for all wooded lots, specifically Lots 22 through 27
,
through 24, Block 1.
16.
The street grades shall be adjusted in an effort to minimize disruption to the adjacent
'
parcels or employ other means to reduce grading limits, i.e. retaining walls. The City
has allowed up to 10% street grades in an effort to minimi grading and tree
removal. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the east side of
,
Country Oaks Lane and the north side of Kings Road in conjunction with the overall
site improvements.
'
17.
The private driveway at the end of White Oak Lane shall be designed and constructed
in accordance to the city's private driveway ordinance (20 ft. wide, 7 ton design and
30 foot wide easement).
'
18. The applicant may qualify for a credit towards the applicant's storm water quantity '
fees. These quantity fees should be applied to this development as outlined in the
SWMP and/or modified accordingly pending adoption by the City Council. The
applicant shall escrow with the city the applicable SWMP fees until such time as the
City Council adopts the Surface Water Management Plan.
19. The City will be requiring the inclusion of a drain tile system with the street and '
utility construction.
1
Harstad Companies
May 18, 1993
June 15, 1994
Page 17
20. Additional erosion control measures will be required during the new home
construction process.
21. A woodland management plan be prepared as per city ordinance Section 18.61(d).
22. The intersection of Country Oaks Road shall be shifted westerly to improve sight
distance in accordance to MnDOT's design criteria.
23. The acreage of park shall be determined by the Park and Recreation Commission.
24. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official noted in memo dated January
21, 1994.
25. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to Kings Road being built between
Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road to the city's urban standards whether
done by the applicant or city improvement project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Morgan/Scott dated May 27, 1994.
2. Hearing notice.
3. Letter from Morgan/Scott dated June 29, 1994 and response from Dave Hempel.
4. Planning Commission minutes dated June 15, 1994.
5. Revised preliminary plat dated May 31, 1994.
Kate Aanenson
City of Chanhassen, Planning Director '
609 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
Dear Kate,
As residents living along Kings Road in the area across
from the intended park, there are two requests we would
like satisfied before the development begins.
They are as follows:
1.) We would like a statement, in writing, from both the
developer and the City of Chanhassen, guaranteeing
that the 8 red cedar trees and 1 maple on our north
property line (the park's south property line) not be
disturbed during road construction or utility placement.
2.) Again, in writing, a statement guaranteeing that the
city and the developer will not allow drainage from
the north of Kings Road run across our property
into Lake St. Joe, at any time during or after
construction.
We would be happy to have the statements drawn up. Will
the City of Chanhassen and the Harstad Company be willing
to sign them?
Please let us know.
Sincerely,
cc: Chanhassen City Council Members
Harstad Company
Chanhassen Park Commission
Chanhassen City Planning Commission Members
.1
a.
Y
19 9
CITY OF
Susan E. Morgan
Linda A. Scott
4031 Kings Road
'
Excelsior, Mn 55331
474 -7365
5/27/94
Kate Aanenson
City of Chanhassen, Planning Director '
609 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
Dear Kate,
As residents living along Kings Road in the area across
from the intended park, there are two requests we would
like satisfied before the development begins.
They are as follows:
1.) We would like a statement, in writing, from both the
developer and the City of Chanhassen, guaranteeing
that the 8 red cedar trees and 1 maple on our north
property line (the park's south property line) not be
disturbed during road construction or utility placement.
2.) Again, in writing, a statement guaranteeing that the
city and the developer will not allow drainage from
the north of Kings Road run across our property
into Lake St. Joe, at any time during or after
construction.
We would be happy to have the statements drawn up. Will
the City of Chanhassen and the Harstad Company be willing
to sign them?
Please let us know.
Sincerely,
cc: Chanhassen City Council Members
Harstad Company
Chanhassen Park Commission
Chanhassen City Planning Commission Members
.1
1
i
i
1
Susan E. Morgan
Linda A. Scott
4031 Kings Road
Excelsior, Mn 55331
474 -7365
5/25/94
Kate Aanenson
City of Chanhassen, Planning Director
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Dear Kate,
This letter was going to be a request for variance in
hooking up to city water and sewer along Kings Road,
however, we discovered we have no factual information
on which to base this request. As a result, this letter
is a request for information on which to base our decision
for variance.
We would like the planning commission to provide us with
the following information prior to the next meeting
on June 15th, concerning the Harstad Development.
1. Is the developer paying for the development of
Kings Road in total?
2. Is the city of Chanhassen paying for the development
of the portion of Kings Road that fronts the park area?
3. In a meeting of Kings Road residents and with the
Harstad Development's engineer on 5/25/94, the engineer
mentioned the utilities (water and sewer) may not run
along Kings Road, but may be taken further north of Kings
Road. In that case, will water and sewer no longer be
available to the residents currently living along Kings
Road? Or does that mean that the City of Chanhassen will
run their own utilities along Kings Road?
4.
�f �• • r • �S
Please explain the following:
A. Stub -in of water and sewer
How far into residents property?
How much does it cost?
Does a resident pay for it in one lump sum or
is it built into a tax assessment?
n
(2)
4. (cont'd)
Please explain the following:
'
B.
Full
hook -up of water and sewer at time of development
How
far into residents property?
Who
pays for the installation, hook -up fee, and
'
reconstruction of torn -up lawn, etc?
Pay
for it as one lump sum or is it built into
a tax assessment?
How
much does it cost?
,
Who
pays for the abandonment of the old septic?
C.
In both
the scenarios of stub -in and full hook -up
'
how
are undeveloped parcels handled?
D.
What
are costs of hook -up a year or two after
initial
development?
We realize that these are a lot of questions, however, they ,
must be answered in order for us to continue our pursuit
of a variance. If there is another source for the answers
please let us know.
We appreciate your time and consideration in answering our
questions. I'm sure you'll agree that a decision based on
facts and research is a sound decision. In addition, having
this information up- front, will help eliminate any surprises
for the commission and the residents.
We await your response.
Thank you! '
Sincerely,
✓�- (DG��z/ C� ..J�dl
cc: Chanhassen Planning Commission Members '
Hars.t.ad Development
Chanhassen City Council Mem
n
n
r
r
r
p
F
May 27, 1994
Dear Property Owner:
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 0 FAX (612) 937 -5739
This letter is to inform you that the following item was scheduled for June 1, 1994 Planning
Commission meeting but has been rescheduled to the June 15, 1994, 7:30 p.m. Planning
Commission meeting:
Harstad Companies to subdivide 35.83..acres of property into 38 single family lots
located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located north of Kings
Road and west of Minnewashta Par The Oaks at Minnewashta.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 937 -1900 extension 118.
Sincerely,
Kathryn R. Aanenson
Planning Director
KA:v w ,
1
1
1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING —
Wednesday, JUNE 1, 1994
7:30 P.M:
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: The Oaks at Minnewashta
Developer: Harstad Companies
Location: North of Kings Road,
West of Minnewashta
Parkway
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. Harstad Companies is proposing to subdivide 35.83 acres of property into 38
single family lots located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located north
of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937 -1900, ext. 118. If you
choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department
in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 12, 1994.
WS I
i
t GARY & NADINE NELSON
7048 RED CEDAR COVE
t EXCELSIOR MN 55317
DAVID & A. PRILLAMAN
064 RED CEDR COVE
EXCELSIOR MN 55317
r HN & SARAH MANEY
78 RED CEDAR COVE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
RALPH & P. KARCZEWSKI
7054 RED CEDAR COVE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
COY & SANDRA SHELBY
7068 RED CEDAR COVE
EXCELSIOR MN 55.331
BERNARD & ALYCE FULLER
7075 RED CEDAR COVE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
- - --
LOUIS/LUANN GUTHMUELLER TIMOTHY J. FISHER
IF7095 RED CEDAR COVE 7099 RED CEDAR COVE
ElEXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
k EVIN & CYNTHIS CUDDIHY
3900 STRATFORD RIDGE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
ALLIN & SHIRLEY KARIS
3920 STRATFORD RIDGE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
[JEFFREY & JANICE ADAMS
3960 STRATFORD RIDGE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
ff,CURRENT RESIDENT
1 STRATFORD RIDGE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
f
WILLIAM J. MUNIG
6850 STRATFORD RIDGE
CELSIOR MN 55331
f
CURRENT RESIDENT
f 3881 STRATFORD RIDGE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
L ATFORD RIDGE HOA
C/O KEITH F. BEDFORD
I 961 STRATFORD RIDGE
XCELSIOR MN 55331
W. SCOTT MORROW &
CYNTIA M. HOUSE
3980 STRATFORD RIDGE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
TERRY & BONNIE LABATT
3981 STRATFORD RIDGE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CHARLES & C. CRUICKSHANK
3921 STRATFORD RIDGE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
HAROLD & ELAINE TAYLOR
3861 STRATFORD RIDGE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MARK & JULIE GRUBE
3931 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
WARREN & JANET RTFTZ
7058 RED CEDAR COVE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
ROBERT & JUDY ROYER
7074 RED CEDAR COVE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
DONALD & B. BITTERMANN
7085 RED CEDAR COVE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
RED CEDAR COVE TWNHOUSE
P.O. BOX 181
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
ROBERT & DEBRA PIROLLI
3940 STRATFORD RIDGE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
BARTON WELLS
4000 STRATFORD RIDGE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
KEITH & KATHRYN BEDFORD
3961 STRATFORD RIDGE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
DOUGLAS & JANET REICHERT
3901 STRATFORD RIDGE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
KEVIN & SUELLYN TRTTZ
3851 STRATFORD RIDGE RD
EXCELSIOR MN 35331
CRAIG & LINDA MACK
3941 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
LOREN H. BEAUDOIN
BRUCE & JENNIFER LINN
TODD & FRANCIS BOYCE
133 SPRING VALLEY CIRCLE
4001 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
4011 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
'
LOREN L. BENSON &
- -- -
JEROME M. BACH
LEE & JUANITA HARVEY
BARBARA B. WILSON
C/O NORWEST BANK, TRUSTEE
7120 KINGS ROAD
7050 KINGS ROAD
6TH MARQUETTE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55479 -0046
JEFFRY H. HALLGREN &
JENNIFER J. HALLGREN
KRISTIN & JERRY KORTGARD
MICHELLE GEORGE
375 HIGHWAY 7
3901 GLENDALE DRIVE
355 HIGHWAY 7
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
LINDA A SCOTT &
LOWELL & J. CARLSON
DAVID & MARGARET BORRIS
SUSAN E. MORGAN
R. 1 BOX 822A
4071 KINGS ROAD
4031 KINGS ROAD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
'
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JOHN P. BAUMTROG
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DARYL & DEBRA KIRT
'
7141 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
7600 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
METRO SQUARE BUILDING
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ST. PAUL MN 55101
'
MARK & DONNA MALINOWSKI
JAMES & ARLENE CONNOR
HOLY CROSS LUTHERA,
7250 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
3901 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD
CHURCH OF MINNESOTA
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
4151 HIGHWAY 7
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
'
LEE ANDERSON
JOANN HALLGREN
JAMES & R. BOYLAN
PLEASANT ACRES HOA
6860 MINNEWASHTA PKWY.
6760 MINNEWASHTA PKWY.
'
RT. 1
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JAMES & JEFFREY KERTSON
KENNETH & DUANE E. LUND
RLK ASSOCIATES
6810 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
395 HIGHWAY 7
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
922 MAIN STREET
HOPKINS MN 55343
'
ROBERT MOREHOUSE
DAVID HEADLA
TERRY FORBORD
4410 HIGHWAY 25
6870 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
LUNDGREN BROS.
WATERTOWN MN 55388
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD.
WAYZATA, MN 55391
LARRY WENZEL
6900 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
' Dave Hempel, City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
'
Dear Dave,
This letter is in reference to easement along Kings Road,
'
initiated by the Harstad Development.
Dave, attached is a copy of the Minnesota statute on roads.
'
Susan E. Morgan
Linda A. Scott
'
4031 Kings Road
Excelsior, Mn 55331
'
474 -7365
6/29/94
' Dave Hempel, City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
'
Dear Dave,
This letter is in reference to easement along Kings Road,
'
initiated by the Harstad Development.
Dave, attached is a copy of the Minnesota statute on roads.
'
Statute 4160.05, Dedication of Roads, substantiates Chanhassen's
right to the width of ACTUAL USE of Kings Road, which is 24 feet.
Statute 44160.04 states that all roads in Minnesota must be
at least four rods (66 ft) wide. In that Chanhassen has "rights"
'
to only 24 feet of actual use, the city would have to purchase,
go through eminent domain proceedings, been given a gift of land,
or condemn, the additional 21 feet on each side of the actual
road bed, to fill out the 66 feet width.
At no time has the City of Chanhassen approached us, the Zieglers
'
Carlsons or Borass' for their easement to Kings Road.
In reading through Chanhassen's code book, the codes pertaining
to easement, define easement, but do not explain how the city
'
goes about obtaining easement for it's roads.
We are requesting a synopsis of how and when the City of
Chanhassen obtained its alleged 33 feet of easement. In your
synopsis, please state the statutes which justify the city's
actions.
1
Thank you.
Sincerely, " C �
Susan E. Morgan
cc: Kate Aanenson, City of Chanhassen Planning Director
Roger Knutson, City of Chanhassen, Attorney
F
ntstury: lYJY c JVU art l s L; !Y /J C !LJ art J S /; IY /U c 6 s '/.z; lY /U C JUU.Y
1984 c 562 s 4; 1985 c 127 s 1; 1985 c 215 s 1; 1987 c 255 s 2
160.021 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 500 art 6 s 13] '
160.03 MS 1953 [Repealed, 1957 c 943 s 721
160.03 COMPENSATION FOR PUBLIC PROPERTY. '
Whenever public property is taken, damaged, or destroyed for highway purposes,
just compensation shall be paid therefor. j
History: 1959 c 500 art 1 s 3
160.031 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 500 art 6 s 13]
FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS
160.04 MS 1953 [Repealed, 1957 c� s 72]
p 60.04 WIDTH OF ROADS. U
Except a r ided, all roads hereafter established, except cartways,
shall be at ast four rods wi Additional right -of -way and easements, including ease -
t-'
ments needed or drainage, may be acquired by purchase, gift, or eminent domain pro -
ceedings when necessary for construction, maintenance, safety, or convenient public
travel. The necessity for such additional right -of -way and easements shall be deter- t
E mined by the road authority having jurisdiction over the particular road involved.
History: 1959 c 500 art 1 s 4
r:
160.041 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 500 art 6 s 13]
160.05 MS 1953 [Repealed, 1957 c 943 s 72]
-� 160.05 DEDICATION OF ROADS. '
' Subdivision 1. Six years. When any road or portion of a road has been used and LI i
E.
kept in repair and worked for at least six ears continuousl as a ublic highway by a
�- road authority, it shall be deemed dedicated to the public t th width o t e actua use C
.> and be and remai , until lawfully vacated, a public ighway w et er it as ever een
:? es taG fished as a public highway or not. Nothing contained in this subdivision shall
impair the right, title, or interest of the water department of any city of the first class
secured under Special Laws 1885, chapter 110. This subdivision shall apply to roads
and streets except platted streets within cities.
s Subd. 2. Roads on and parallel to railroad right -of- -way. The continued use of any
road by the public upon and parallel to the right -of -way of any railway company shall
not constitute such a road a legal highway or a charge upon the town in which the same '
is situated, and no right shall accrue to the public or any individual by such use.
History: 1959 c 500 art 1 s 5; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7. 1982 c 424 s 40, 1984 c 562 s 5
160.051 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 500 art 6 s 13]
160.06 MS 1953 [Repealed, 1957 c 943 s 721
160.06 TRAIL OR PORTAGE DEDICATION. '
Any trail or portage between public or navigable bodies of water or from public
: 1 or navigable water to a public highway in this state which has been in continued and
uninterrupted use by the general public for 15 years or more as a trail or portage for
the purposes of travel, shall be deemed to have been dedicated to the public as a trail
.;.
.1
History: 1959 c 500 art 1 s 6
160.061 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c-500 art 6 s 13]
' 160.07 MS 1953 [Repealed, 1957 c 943 s 72]
160.07 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN OR WITHOUT BOUNDARIES.
The road authority of any county, town or city may appropriate and expend such
reasonable sums as it may deem proper to assist in the improvement and maintenance
of roads, bridges, or ferries lying beyond the boundary of and leading into such county,
town or city.
History: 1959 c 500 art I s 7; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7
' 160.071 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 500 art 6 s 13]
160.08 MS 1953 [Repealed, 1957 c 943 s 72]
f 160.08 CONTROLLED ACCESS.
Subdivision 1. Plans. The road authorities of the state, counties or cities acting
either alone, or in cooperation with each other, or with any federal agency, or with any
' other state or subdivision of another state having authority to participate in the con-
struction or maintenance of highways are authorized to plan for the designation, estab-
lishment, location, relocation, improvement, and maintenance of controlled access
' highways for public use whenever the road authorities determine that traffic conditions,
present or future, will justify such highways.
Subd. 2. [Repealed, 1969 c 312 s 8]
Subd. 3. Traffic control. Such road authorities are authorized to so design any con-
, trolled access highway, and to so regulate, restrict, or prohibit access as to best serve
the traffic for which the highway is intended. Such road authorities are authorized to
divide and separate any controlled access highway into separate roadways by the con-
struction of raised curbings, central dividing sections, or other physical separations, or
by designating the separate roadways by signs, markers, stripes, or other devices. No
person shall have any rights of ingress or egress to, from, or across controlled access
highways to or from abutting lands, except at the designated points or roadways thereof
where access is permitted by such road authorities upon such terms and conditions as
such road authorities specify.
Subd. 4. Acquisition of property. Property rights, including rights of access, air,
view, and light, may be acquired by said road authorities with respect to both private
and public property by purchase, gift, or condemnation. ?
Subd. 5. Elimination of grade intersections; additional access openings; compensa
V ` tion. Such road authorities may locate, establish, and construct controlled access high-
, ways, or may designate and establish an existing street or highway as a controlled access
highway. Such road authorities are authorized to provide for the elimination of grade
intersections of controlled access highways with other existing streets or highways of
any kind or nature whatsoever. The elimination may be accomplished by the construc-
t tion of grade separations, or the construction of an outer lane as part of the controlled
access highway, or by closing off streets or highways at the right -of -way boundary of
the controlled access highway. When an outer lane is constructed, the abutting owners
shall have access to the outer lane unless the petition and notice in condemnation, or
' the highway deed in cases of purchase clearly specifies that right of access to the
outer lane has been acquired. After the establishment of any controlled access highway
no other street or highway or private entry shall be opened into or connectedmith any
controlled access highway without the consent and prior approval of the road authority
Ms. Susan Morgan
Ms. Linda Scott
4031 Kings Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
i
r
LJ
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Re: Kings Road Right -of -Way - LUR File No. 94 -2
Dear Ms. Morgan & Ms. Scott:
Thank you for your letter dated June 29, 1994 regarding your concerns for the road right -of -way along Kings Road.
As discussed with Ms. Morgan by telephone today, the City does not hold an exclusive easement over the 33 -foot
wide strip of land as shown on the City's half - section map. I have attached for your convenience, a copy of a letter
dated Jul} 13, 1994 from the City's attorney's office, Mr. James Walston, regarding the City's rights as far as use
of the existing gravel portion of Kings Road. Again, the City has not obtained the alleged 33 feet of easement as
shown on the City's half - section map. The City's use of Kings is limited to the existing gravel surface, shoulders,
and ditches that have been maintained by the City per state statutes.
I hope this letter address your concerns stipulated in your June 29, 1994 letter. If I may be of further assistance,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
n
David C. Hempel
Assistant City Engineer
DCH:jms
Enclosures
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
Roger Knutson, Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs
6:**\d&w'4eeen\kwSrwd
7
L
r_
L
L
I �
I �
July 6, 1994
' CAMPBELL KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA.
Att,•.rno m L.w.
lrl_1 i�:•� ;:;
Fay W21 ii_•i�j;
is *.... !. • "..... . �
July 13, 1993
Mr. Dave Hempel
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Box 147
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: City of Chanhassen - Kings Road
Our File No. 12668/292
Dear Dave:
Enclosed please find correspondence from Carver County
Abstract & Title Company, Inc. dated July 7, 1993 regarding the
status of Kings Road lying westerly of Minnewashta Parkway.
' Please note that the Abstract Company searched the records for
any conveyances creating easement rights in the name of the City
of Chanhassen and were unable to locate any such conveyances.
in a case such as this, the public's right -of -way for Kings
Road is generally limited to the travelled portion of the land
along with the shoulder and any lands utilized as support for the
public right -of -way.
After you have received this correspondence, please contact
' me to discuss this matter further.
CITY O F CHANHASSEN ver trul y ours,
UPON ? CAMPBELL,
' JUL 14 199.1 & FU % CH
ENGINEERw DEPT. ' James R. alst
JRW:rlt
Enclosure
tie
• _ ...: ,i, ��r u� C:rnt� I ,Z C, -Irr,lratr CenteT CUr%'@ • Eagan, M 551.1
L
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1
PUBLIC HEARING:
'
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 38
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES TO THE MORELAND
REGULATIONS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZES, LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED
'
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD
AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, THE OAKS AT MINNEWASHTA,
HARSTAD COMPANIES.
,
Public Present:
Name Address
Bedford 3961 Stratford Keith Ridge
Paul Harstad 2191 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton
Steve Johnston Loucks and Assoc, 7200 Hemlock Lane,
'
Maple Grove
Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road
Lynda Scott 4031 Kings Road
Karen DeMun 6930 Minnewashta Parkway
Margie Borris 4071 Kings Road
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
'
Scott: Any questions or comments from commissioners for staff?
Mancino: Kate, just one question. Is Kings Road a collector street? It says here in the staff '
report, page 4, at this time Kings Road is proposed to be extended to intersect with Country
Oaks Road to act as a local collector street for the subdivision.
Aanenson: ...at some future date with the more properties subdividing in that area. When
sewer becomes available, that may be an issue.
Mancino: I thought we didn't want any more curb cuts on collector streets? And we weren't '
allowing.
12 1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Aanenson: Well we're getting direct access onto, they're all getting access off Country Oaks.
The 4 lots in Block 1 are being platted as, excuse me. The 3 lots. The first lot ...access off
Country Oaks. Those other lots will be platted as an oudot until such time as Country Oaks,
excuse me, Kings Road is developed to city standards. So those 3 lots. This lot will get
access off of Country Oaks. These lots will be platted in an outlot until such time as Kings
Road is developed to city standards.
Mancino: When Kings Road is developed to city standards, it will be a collector?
Aanenson: A minor collector.
Scott: So it's not like Kerber Blvd.
Aanenson: Not like Minnewashta Parkway is a collector. It's a feeder street. It will ... out of
Minnewashta Parkway.
Mancino: Okay. Like Lake Lucy Road?
Aanenson: No. Not to that ... of traffic.
Mancino: So that when Kings Road is developed westward, you can access individual
properties off Kings Road? I thought we kind of stopped that.
Scott: But because it's a minor.
Mancino: Is that because it's a minor collector?
Aanenson: There are existing conditions...
Mancino: But they're already existing. They're already there. They're grandfathered,
grandmothered in.
Aanenson: Yeah, and we're not allowing it with the subdivision. Is that your question?
Those lots will have access, those two. Oh excuse me, at a future date, correct. Those 4 lots.
Mancino: But we are saying those lots can have individual access, curb cuts on the minor
collector. I thought that in previous subdivisions we could not, you've been against it.
Hempel: One clarification Commission Mancino. This street is going to act like, similar to
Lake Susan Hills Drive where you have all the other neighborhoods feeding onto this
13
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1
1
neighborhood collector if you will. There is driveways up and down that street that access
this type of street... Ideally it's, if you can get them off ...but all those parcels to the south, or ,
I should say a majority of them, will have access directly off of Kings Road. There's not
enough right -of -way or not enough land to subdivide and put a cul -de -sac street in and so
forth. These are very large lots...
Mancino: I just wondered if we were being inconsistent at all.
Hempel: No, we don't believe so. '
Scott: Would the applicant and /or their representative like to make a brief presentation? I
Steve Johnston: Good evening ... also with me tonight is Paul Harstad with Harstad
Companies. Paul will be available to answer any questions you might have ... The plat that
'
you see before you is the results of staff's comments and the original proposal. We had a
meeting with the owners adjacent to the project ...As Kate mentioned, specifically we tried to
addressed staff's concerns with the private drive...the extension to the east ... rather than
continuing to Stratford...The other modification that you'll see is that we have shifted Country
Oaks Road to the east so it aligns up with the eastern property line with the Borris property.
That was a request of the committee meeting in trying to avoid ... so we have been trying to be
as responsive to the...I'm happy to say that we have come up with the street profile for Kings
Road that will save all of the trees on the south side of the road. All of the trees that are on
other people's property. The unfortunate thing is, by virtue of widening the road, all the
,
homes and all the trees on the north side of the building will be lost. That's because of
the ... fairly close to the existing road surface and it was requested to widened that road out...
That will take filling along our south property line ... north line of the existing Kings Road...
'
There was some discussion at the previous meeting ... north line or south line. Our surveyors
staked it and we went over that with them. There was some, they felt ... the line to be staked
was correct and a correct south property line which would be the new south line, south right -
'
of -way for Kings Road... As you mentioned, that's one of the biggest concerns at the previous
meeting had to do with the...sewer installation on Kings Road and that may require work
outside of the 50 foot right -of -way. The proposal that we had made was ... the sanitary sewer
through a portion of the park property allowing us to avoid putting ... As a result of that though
and in looking at a lift station at the western most extension of Kings Road, that lift station
will be sized to handle flow from this project and other properties in Chanhassen... That lift
'
station is being installed as part of the first phase of the project... There is one item in the
staff report that we just want to comment on for the record. And that is that they are
concerned with the... distribution being proposed in the staff report...
Ledvina: What condition is that? 1
14 1
i Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
1 Mancino: Number 7.
Aanenson: That was regarding'the park. The city will be taking, or purchasing the park
property. Who's responsible for those improvements in front of the park. ...the city will be
' responsible for...
Scott: Any questions or comments for the applicant?
' Mancino: Is there any streetscaping on Kings Road at this point?
' Aanenson: That's what we're recommending as part of the woodland management plan.
That those trees they'll be taking out, that they come back and look at ... That was one of our
recommendations ... come back with streetscape plan now for Kings Road. But also...
Mancino: Okay, so that's to make sure that the tree preservation and the woodland
management plan is that the percentage does not include all the streetscaping...
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Alright, thank you very much.
Steve Johnston: I guess I would like to request the ability to respond to any of the questions
that are...
Scott: Yeah, I think if there's during the public hearing, certainly if there's a question that
staff can't answer.
Steve Johnston: Okay, thank you.
Scott: Good. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: If you'd like to speak on this particular issue, please step up to the microphone and
give us your name and your address.
Margie Borris: I'm Margie Borris. I live at 4071 Kings Road. I want to thank you for
moving that road. There are, on that first spot I believe... Number one where there were 12
cedar trees on the ridge there... According to the University of Minnesota Arboretum, some of
those trees can be moved. So they do not have to be destroyed. Red cedar trees are very
rare in Minnesota but I'd like to ... that the neighbors around us do want to keep as many of
15
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1
s we can. The next question is I couldn't read with our eyes because the writing '
those a q y g is so
small. The questions on the, since the sewer's now going to go down the center of the '
property, how, with the new grading, and the roads putting in, are we going to keep from
getting water washed into Kings Road, specifically my property. Because it sounded like we
would be lowering, we were changing the grades ... like it could drain into our property. But if ,
there's a sewer there, that wouldn't be a problem but now there's no sewer there.
Scott: Dave. I
Hempel: Mr Chairman. Kings Road is proposed to be fully upgraded to the intersection of
Country Oaks Drive. From that point west and it will ... street. Some portion of the street, the I
upgrade will have curb and gutter and storm sewer in place to collect drainage.
Margie Borris: Okay. Another thing that was brought up ... is that we have underground ,
electricity which is hooked up right at the corner of our lot across Kings Road to our
property. If that's going to be disrupted or not, what are we going to do for electricity?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, those kind of conflicts are dealt with in every construction project. r
Modifications are made in the field to provide temporary service to each individual home
site... Those are all factors taken into consideration during construction. '
Margie Borris: Did you come up with a plan while this under construction so that persons
living on Kings Road that have no other way or entering and exiting their home, they can get
to and from work?
Hempel: That would be addressed as well. Emergency services to deal with each home as
well.
Margie Borris: Okay. Well we went through the Minnewashta Parkway debacle for a couple
years and we're real concerned. I was wondering too if there could be a stop sign placed at
the, I can't read the name of that. Something Oaks Drive and ... for the people exiting that
development, would this be...
Scott: That's pretty much standard procedure, isn't it Dave? ,
Margie Borris: Okay, well it wasn't on here so I didn't know.
Scott: Good question though. Okay thank you ma'am. Anyone else please. Yes ma'am. ,
Sue Morgan: My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road and I have several issues '
16 ,
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
that I'd like to address. Several which I've already addressed to the commission and Kate
through letters and I haven't really received a response so I'd like to talk about them for a
' little. One is that, I know we talked here about taking the cedar trees on the south side of
Kings Road and ... This kind of gives you some idea the cedar trees we're talking about.
They're these trees right here. As I said, this is Kings Road right here and my house is on
' the other side of the street up in here. It's been said that the trees will be spared. We know
that accidents happen in construction and we know that there aren't any guarantees ... in
' construction so we'd like to have something in writing that kind of acknowledges to us that
these will be saved. Is that possible?
Scott: I know standard procedure is to put snow fence. There's an area, and I believe it
coincides with the drip area. The outside of the canopy of the tree and that is denoted as a
no tread zone if you will. That's a typical situation. Now when we're talking about a road
Dave, we would use that same sort of a scenario to keep construction equipment off of that
drip zone?
' Hempel: That is one method, sure. During construction you do have numerous
subcontractors and so forth that do prelim the site... Occasionally accidents will happen ... but
these trees are all within your property and so if there is damage done to them, the contractor
does have insurance and is available to file claims against. That's one thing... certainly could
put up construction fencing around each tree...
' Mancino: Dave, don't they have to, prior to them getting any sort of roadway improvements,
doesn't someone go out from the city. Maybe our intern, our tree intern and inspects the site
to make sure that there is that protected fence up before anybody is allowed to start doing the
' work?
Hempel: Yes, that's correct. We do go out and inspect those areas. Sometimes some of the
' tree removal is done though actually before some of that stuff is put in because vegetation is
so dense but in this situation, it's more sparse where it's easy to be put up prior to
construction.
Mancino: So we can actually write that down as part of the recommendation. That snow
fencing must be put up and approved by city staff before any of the road construction begins.
'
Hempel: We certainly can. I guess we'll know more of the impacts of these trees I
P Y g P guess
know the final design of the street grades. I'm not on a comfort level yet with the applicant's
construction plans to see the full impact of the street grades and that ...upgrade of Kings Road
will be a cooperative project between the city and the applicant. Most likely will be a 429
' project or an assessable project... During the design we'll see the full impacts on the trees as
17
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1
we've done in other areas, we've ... we can to preserve them. '
Sue Morgan: So basically you're saying that there's still... basically you just said you haven't ,
really seen the final grading. Whereas prior to this time you said, you mentioned that final
grading had been done on the street ... Kate said the same thing. What you're saying is now is
you still don't know. '
Hempel: I have not seen a final set of construction drawings which you don't develop until
you're getting close to the final plat stage. But the preliminary grading, the contour lines will '
indicate the construction limits. I have not seen those newly revised street grades. I've seen
the street profile but not a cross section. '
Sue Morgan: So basically the problem is that we really don't know who's responsible for
what. It hasn't been decided if the city is...so right now nobody's taking responsibility for it ,
is basically what you're saying because you haven't seen the grading. He doesn't know what
you're doing so it goes back and forth, back and forth. We're still in the same situation we
were before is that no one will give us an answer and I want someone to say the answer. '
When...
Hempel: We will have an answer when a feasibility study is done as part of the city project I
to upgrade this road.
Sue Morgan: When is that, a month? Two months? '
Hempel: That would be once the applicant petitions the city to see ... this type of project.
Sue Morgan: Is that after the City Council has approved this? Is that before the City
Council approves it?
Hempel: This preliminary plat approval is contingent upon the applicant petitioning the city
to upgrade Kings Road. So this will not happen unless, this develop will not happen without
Kings Road being upgraded.
Sue Morgan: Okay, so right now he's just getting his development approved. He's not
getting the upgrading of Kings Road approved, is that what you're saying? ,
Hempel: It's kind of a package deal where his development is contingent upon him working
with the city. The city developing Kings Road so. '
Sue Morgan: So basically right now... ,
18
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Hempel: I'm relying on the engineer for this development has done some preliminary
identification but ... impact of the trees but I don't know if he'd like to address it further.
' Sue Morgan: Okay. Something else that kind of impacts that is that in contacting our
attorney and also we started some proceedings with our title company, Kings Road, there's
' always been some question as to who owns Kings Road. About right -of -way. About
easement and that still hasn't been resolved. There's nothing in our abstract, in our surveys
that shows that the City of Chanhassen owns Kings Road. It has rights to it. I don't know if
' you or the City Attorney can give me the specific statute or I don't know what you'd call it.
If your book of procedures that says what the standard is for obtaining an easement or right -
of -way for this property for a road but that is still not clear to us and I don't know if it's
' going to be...proceeding on Kings Road or what. We're in the process of...and maybe that
would help clarify or help you guys decide whether ... right to that easement then...
' Aanenson: Can I address that? We looked at that several months ago and the opinion from
the attorney's office is that we have a right based on the fact the city's been maintaining that
' road for 7 to 10 years so that we have a right of use. Based on that, where we've been
plowing, that's why this plat went back. We had to go back and determine where exactly the
southerly property is. Where we've been maintaining that road. That's why it's so far to the
' north. And they had to give up additional property. Push the road further to the north ... the
southerly property line for Kings Road now is the most southerly portion that the city has
been maintaining and plowing. That's our interpretation based on the City Attorney's opinion
' of our use.
Sue Morgan: Right. That's your city...
' Aanenson: That's why this plat is moving forward.
' Sue Morgan: ...there is not a statute or anything on the books that says Chanhassen, what
procedure goes through to obtain an easement other than the fact that you plow that road,
therefore you own that road. Lowell Carlson's been plowing that road more than the City of
' Chanhassen so as far as I'm concerned, he owns that road. So what I'm saying is, that we're
going through an investigation... That is the city of Chanhassen's interpretation. But we want
to make sure. Maybe that is the way it is. Maybe that is the way it is. But we need for our
' peace of mind to find out that that is the way. But moving on.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could just address that one point. Maybe for clarification. The
' new road will actually be north of that. We're not even going to be using the existing Kings
Road.
19
r
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1
Sue Morgan: Right, but have you seen the stakes? We went out with the engineer to see the '
g g Y g
stakes. We know where the stakes are going and the finished road, you're right. Is going to
be north of where the gravel stops now. So it will be a little north of our property. Maybe '
about 2 -2 1/2 feet. What we're concerned with is the actual construction of that road because
usually, if you notice the construction around here, you have to go wider than the finished
product in order to get the finished product. So that's what we're concerned with because '
you're saying that you've got right -of -way. You've got easements which means, if you've
got as much right -of -way easement as you say you do, you're coming right into our driveway.
Right into our front door practically. So what we're trying to do is to find out what the '
parameters are. We're not saying that you're wrong but what we want is to make sure you're
right. Okay. Make sure you're right so you're not just blowing smoke... '
Scott: So you basically would like to have some sort of a line so it's kind of like this is
your's and this is our's and you're not going to be over here. '
Sue Morgan: And that's fine. You can do what you want with it and we'll do our thing
and ... so we keep going back and forth and nothing is resolved... Also, the next item is the '
drainage...
Mancino: Excuse me Sue. Are those trees in the easement? The way it is right now. '
Sue Morgan: Yes.
Mancino: They are in the easement. '
Margie Borris: Those 12 trees that I was talking about are actually on the north side of ,
Kings Road and it's always been interpreted to be as our property because the fence line had
been the property line for, since anybody could remember and that's a disputed area and on
that right of use that you were talking about, if you maintain that area. So if you went over '
there and you mowed the lawn, we pick the weeds ... then we have maintained the north side
of Kings Road as well.
Sue Morgan: So I guess the thin is, we just need to et it resolved you know. And this '
g g g J g Y
seems like the opportune time because development is coming in. You guys are going to be
working on it so... But the next item I wanted to discuss is the drainage on Kings Road... ,
There is this one holding pond that is going to be off the park there and kind of down ... and
I'm not, I don't really understand how that works. 1
Scott: I think there's another overhead that shows that outlot that's south of Kings Road. Is
that what you're talking about? '
20
r
i Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Sue Morgan: Well it's kind of a combination of the two because the, if there's going to be a
holding pond that's here, then there's got to be some way to get the drainage from there into
' Lake St. Joe which is, I'm assuming is here. Right now this field drains right across our
property into Lake St. Joe and what we requested is the city has no easement on the property.
To make sure that this pass thru is closed off before construction begins because we really
' don't want any of the runoff from this construction to ... property. Also we have some
concerns because the elevation here. If you look at some of the schematics they've drawn, it
goes uphill and then it goes downhill so if they're going to put a pond here, how are they
' going to get the water to naturally drain from this pond, underneath the road and through here
to Lake St. Joe.
I Scott: Dave.
Hempel: This latest proposal shows the storm water pond located in this area here, which
will take the development's storm water and treat it in here. Then a storm sewer pipe is
proposed to discharge in this area here. Continue across underneath Kings Road. As a part
' of the park development and the upgrade of Kings Road, we're going to need another small
ponding area down in this area here due to the elevation change as mentioned. We'll
probably have some storm sewer in Kings Road which outlets into this pond area. It's our
' thought to bring the storm sewer down to this area here and have an outlet into the same
storm sewer system and have it then discharge across the street through the outlots within the
development. Sharmin, do you have a little...
r Scott: So you're talking, the water's going to be draining over the surface of the street and
not underneath it?
Hempel: No. We're going to pipe it from the proposed pond here down to, it'd be almost
like a trunk storm sewer in a way. I'll give you a relation here. This is the proposed pond
' here on the new development. Pipe it down to a location where we have another pond. Take
the storm runoff from Kings Road. Than pipe it across into this outlot which.
Scott: This would go under the road?
Hempel: Underneath the road.
Scott: Okay. You're saying across and I didn't.
Hempel: Underneath the road. So the water will be pre - treated prior to be discharging to
Lake St. Joe.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Sue Morgan: But you still mentioned that there would be some runoff underneath Lake St.
Joe when it comes from that. ,
Scott: Well isn't that road going to effectively stop any runoff that's going through the north,
with the new urban street section that you're going to be. ,
Hempel: This is the high point. This is draining in each direction. All this water that comes
down here will be collected by storm sewers, put into the storm, proposed storm pond and ,
then routed into the storm sewer that comes from this pond and taken underneath the street
through a storm sewer pipe and discharged to Lake St. Joe after it's all been pre - treated.
Scott: So basically that.
Hempel: That will eliminate your current drainage situation that you have right through your
property.
Sue Morgan: Okay. So will that be closed off prior to construction?
Hempel: In conjunction with construction, yes. I
Scott: My guess would be that there'd be a construction fence placed in that 4 x 4 feet of
black plastic. I don't know what you can call it. That entire development is going to have to ,
be ringed by the construction fence which is to keep runoff and so forth from washing onto
adjacent parcels. Good. Thanks Dave.
Sue Morgan: Again, then I have one other issue that came up at the last meeting and that ,
was on water impacted. I'm not clear as to what's happening with the utilities along Kings
Road. If the utilities for the development are going to move any further north ... along Kings ,
Road. Is the city going to be putting in a city owned sewer on that land then along Kings
Road?
Hempel: For the upgrade of Kings Road, it only makes sense that we extend sanitary sewer
and water under the new street section so we don't have to go back and tear it up 5 or 6
years down the road when these property owners subdivide or want to hook up to city sewer 1
so as a part of the upgrading we will provide sewer and water extension of Kings Road to
service these properties to the south whenever they desire to connect up to it. But again, the
issue comes up about hooking up to the sewer line and so forth. The current ordinance r
requires the properties that ... sewer line hook up to within 12 months after it becomes
operational. As mentioned in the staff report, the City Council is the body that has the power
to grant variances to that ordinance. '
22 1
L
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Sue Morgan: Who is the body that decides...?
' Hempel: That will be addressed with the feasibility study. The upgrade of Kings Road.
Scott: So that's calculated by the city engineering staff and any consultants that might be
involved with it.
Sue Morgan: Okay ... to make a decision as to whether to request a variance, if I had ... and so
you kind of put us a little dilemma here because we're... We need to know before we request
' a variance how much it's going to cost. Maybe it's within our budget to do it... But until you
tell us how much it costs, we don't know that. We need to...
' Scott: Yeah, when do you think those numbers are going to be available?
Hempel: With the project for the upgrade of Kings Road, there will be informational
meetings held on that once we get the information and have it to pass along to the
homeowners what the costs will be at that time.
' Sue Morgan: Also, is the city, the utilities going off of Kings Road can we request that they
go on the north side of the road and not down the center line?
' Scott: Is that where they're slated to go anyway? On the north.
Hempel: The utility lines do follow what they call a 10 feet standard where they have to
have certain separation of like the sanitary sewer and the watermain. If the sanitary sewer
runs down the center of the street, the watermain is on the north side of the road and the
storm sewer is on the south side of the road at 10 foot intervals.
' Sue Morgan: ...that falls into the situation with the street...
Hempel: Those are going to be actually under the surface of the road.
Sue Morgan: We were told that they have to make the road wider in order to put the utilities
in and they normally go underneath the roadway if possible...
Hempel: For the installation of utilities, when they dig out their trench, it is a little bit wider
trench... With storm sewer generally they can be pretty shallow ... less than 10 feet. The
watermain has to be at least 7 1/2 feet deep...
' 23
Planning ommission Meeting - June 15, 1994
g g
i
Sue Morgan: Within the 60 foot right -of- way...
Hempel: That I can't answer at this point.
,
P P
Sue Morgan: So we're still talkie about—You said the trees will be saved but you really
g g Y Y
don't know. Why...
Hempel: I did not say the trees will be saved. That's the engineer. The applicant's engineer
indicated that. I have not seen the full documentation of that yet. ,
Margie Borris: If, I guess just while we're on the trees. I forgot the gentleman's name in the
striped shirt. Steve, okay. He talked, if we're getting variances, why can't we get variances '
on the street alignment. Basically Country Lane. Keep it pretty much like it is instead of
changing it into this super modern, meets the city codes and all this kind of stuff and keep a
little peace and quiet in Chanhassen.
Scott: Yeah, that would be nice. Unfortunately.
Harberts: I think we'd have about 3,000 other families. '
Scott: Yeah, that's not, I don't think that's, you know it's nice but it's something that's not I
feasible.
Margie Borris: Why? I
Scott: The reason being is that based upon the type of development that's slated to go in and
the city standards for roads that are needed to handle that kind of proposed traffic, also with '
the utilities needed to support the development, it's not possible to leave things the way they
are. That particular road was constructed, it's almost like, well from my experience from
being down there. ,
Margie Borris: It was never constructed. It was just a cow path that they widened out.
Scott: Right, ri ght. But that's not an issue. That's not an that's going to be changed.
,
g Y� g g g g
There is a road going to go in there and it's going to have a certain urban standard.
Margie Borris: ...I think we've pretty much all accepted the fact that they're going to change
the road. What we would like to do is keep it as much the feel of it as possible. Keep ... why '
did we buy our property to move out there. A nice tree lined street. Okay. Now they're
24 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
talking about widening out the north side...
Scott: You know what I think we should do here. Excuse me ma'am. If we could maybe
finish.
' Sue Morgan: I just have one more item. Also I'd like to suggest that for, I know we talked
about assessments for the road and who's paying what percentage of it, but for the 50% or
' whatever percent the city will be taking care of or absorbing the construction of the road, that
perhaps the assessment order can be distributed like the Minnewashta Parkway project.
Whereas everyone that accesses that road, or has access to it, pays for it. This road will be
fronting a park. A neighborhood park and I would like to suggest that all the neighborhoods,
the other neighbors in that neighborhood pay for the road. So if you take into consideration
that there's going to be like 44 households that they're putting in. There's going to be the 4
' of us. 4 households there. It'd be nice to kind of distribute that assessment a little further to
those people who are going to be driving up and down...
' Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe just to add onto that. At this point we're not looking at
assessing the properties to the south of Kings Road. At some future time when they hook up
to the sewer and water, then they would pay their fair share of connection hook -up charges at
' that time. But we're not proposing any street or storm drainage assessments to those
individuals on the south side of Kings Road.
F
Scott: Okay. What we like to tell everybody too is that we make recommendations and the
City Council, you know. You've heard that story but it's important that you follow the issue
because that's where the decisions get made.
Sue Morgan: I very much appreciate your time and your attention to this and I guess the
bottom line is that we've been there for a while and the road and the new development is
coming in. Maybe if we could get the road to go a little further north, that would be
helpful...
Scott: Well thank you. Those are good questions. Would anyone else like to speak at the
public hearing? Seeing none, could I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
I Scott: Ladd.
Conrad: I think the neighbors brought up some real good questions. They'd be the same
25
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
questions that I'd ask. But at this point in time I think, from what I've seen the developer do
and staff do, I think they've worked out something that I'm pretty comfortable with. It's the,
some of the guarantees that the neighbors are asking for, you know you're out of the system
basically and what's happened once we say something and once the City Council does it,
you're sort of hoping that staff monitors the developers properly. And I think, that's just '
tough to bring them back into the loop once it goes through this. I really appreciate what
they're saying. I think Dave, there are several questions or concerns. I don't know that we
can solve them. The big concern still remains with the trees in terms of have we engineered ,
to save the south trees. What would you recommend the, what's the process? I guess right
now I would have to go along with the case in front of us in terms of the recommendations
but let us say that you found out that the trees could not be saved. Or all of them. Or Kate,
what's the process to review that? Because by the time this gets to City Council, you're not
going to know any more than you do tonight. ,
Aanenson: Well not the preliminary plans. What Dave is indicating, before we get the final
plat they have to do some... ,
Conrad: And let's say that they find.
Aanenson: As the ... has indicated, the possibility of maybe transplanting these trees on the ,
north. That's certainly...
Conrad: I like that. '
Aanenson: ...but we have a woodland management plan. The applicants are going to
respond ... and slightly to the north. I mean that solves his problem with the tree preservation.
Conrad: But I really want to tackle, the residents are saying hey, you know it looks kind of I
good.
Aanenson: We understand the condition and ... was certainly our goal to preserve the integrity I
of that area.
Conrad: Okay Kate then let's say that Dave takes a look at the final plans and says that half
of those trees are going to die because we do have to put utilities that close to that. So what
happens at that point?
Mancino: Can't we make a recommendation that the be saved? That the would be moved.
Y Y
Conrad: Well I don't know the process. You know I think the process would be, Kate ,
26 1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
' would say ell they're going to die so we're going to, she's going to administratively deal
Y Y g g g g g g Y
with it in terms of the replacing trees and I don't think that the neighbors say that's fine but
' we'd rather save them in the first place.
' Aanenson: We've dealt with this in other utility improvement projects in the city where we
had to go in and ... upgrade the sewer and we had to take out trees. The Council's dealt with
' this issue before and if this is a 429 project, there's a possibility of that being ... we certainly
understand the concern and the Council does too. The city looked at other utility projects...
' Scott: What we have I think is the applicant saying the trees would be saved, and I think
from a condition standpoint, I think we can put something in where a licensed arborist or
someone, independent party can, based upon a final survey of where the road's going to go.
' When you get that information, then I think at that point in time someone who is a registered,
I don't know what you'd call it. I'll say arborist. Can then take a look at, look at the species
of trees and say fine. No, they're going to die and then we have another issue. I think what
you want to do is, since it's so iffy right now, we don't want to make a decision to send it
ahead and then have the neighbors thinking one thing and then all of a sudden they get the
other and you're just trying to figure out how to protect them.
Conrad: Well yeah, it's a frustration from anybody that has something impacting them. Then
a city coming in and kind of saying, well that kind of looks okay. And in 2 weeks from now
the City Council's going to say, well that kind of looks okay. And then the real engineering
reports might come in later on when you see the elevations or whatever, and then it doesn't
look so hot but everybody's out of the loop at that point. And there's not, I think we're
probably stuck with, in terms of how we deal with this, a best effort scenario but the only
thing that bothers me is really the applicant saying well we think we have a solution and
Dave's not able to say it's pretty good. And that's really what I want to hear from Dave is
saying, I think it's a pretty good shot and until I hear him say that, I'm uncomfortable.
Mancino: I don't think it should go out of the loop. I think it should come back in if, it's
to City Council. If he finds out when he does his real evaluation. The real thing. If he feels
comfortable saying yeah or nay. That at that point, if it's yeah, everybody goes great. The
' people who live near it. If it says nay, then it comes back to City Council to review it and
what do we do then?
Conrad: I think that's appropriate because I think of all the issues, and there are a lot of
issues that the neighbors have brought in and unfortunately this is progress and that's what's
happening and the best we can do is minimize the impact. I know your lifestyle's going to
change a tad and it's changed for most of us who have lived here for 20 years. And there
27
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1
28 ,
aren't any guarantees but I guess the only thing I'd like is to have our staff being able to say,
it's a good shot and again, there aren't any guarantees. You're probably not going to get
'
anything in writing to say that the city of Chanhassen guarantees 100% of the trees on the
south side are going to be saved. I don't think we'd do that because it's just too many. We
just wouldn't do that. But I think again, what I do want to hear is feedback from our
'
engineering staff saying that the design is, meets his specifications so I think we do want that
loop. The only other thing I like is the idea of transplanting trees. If that works. I think
that's sort of a neat deal and maybe, if these trees, I don't see that as, given the reforestation
'
or whatever we need under the tree management plan, I think moving some of these trees
might be a good solution. Everything else, I'm in agreement with in the staff report.
'
our overall opinion on the staff recommendation is positive?
Scott: So P
Y
Conrad: Right.
'
Scott: Okay, Matt.
'
Ledvina. I ' d a lik to give iv Dave a chance to comment on this.
Hempel: If I could just comment a little ... Kings Road. City Council still has another
'
opportunity. They have to approve the construction plans for the upgrade of Kings Road so
the issue about the trees I'm sure is going to be relayed to the City Council. They're going
to follow that item. They're going to want to see that in the construction plans of the
'
upgrade. That these trees are being addressed. Are they being saved? Are there retaining
walls out there saving these trees or can't we save these trees? That's the time that the City
Council's going to say yeah or nay on the construction plans of Kings Road. So there is
'
more opportunity to hold back this development, if you will because of the tree issue. I just
wanted to point that out.
Scott: Okay, good.
Conrad: Joe, one more question. The variance that we grant in terms of the 20,000 square
foot lot sizes, Kate. That doesn't set a precedent for any lots built closer?
'
Aanenson: These are the lots on the most northern lots of the plat. Again, they all averaged
over the 20,000 square foot minimum and the same for the lot width and the DNR supports
the variance based on the location and the overall lot being over 20,000 square feet.
'
Conrad: So when the neighbors that will build to the east, this variance will not set any kind
of, it's a totally independent issue, right?
28 ,
i Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Aanenson: I think so.
Mancino: Only that, I don't think that we allowed Lundgren, on the other side of Lake St.
Joe.
' Aanenson: We gave them variances on the front yard lot line.
Mancino: But now on the 20,000 square foot.
Scott: It wasn't averaged.
Mancino: It wasn't an average. It was per lot.
' Conrad: I'm pretty comfortable with how close.
' Mancino: Are you pretty comfortable with the average?
Conrad: Yeah.
' Aanenson: Some of the lots are dissected. Some of the lots have less than, just a portion of
the lot falls within that shoreland district. When this plat originally came back through, there
' were 57 lots. We looked at giving some variances and whether, not the entire lot fell within
the...
' Conrad: If I thought there was some real drainage issues between there and the lake, that
would be a trigger and I think to solve the, I just don't want the developer to the east saying
well, we've had the variance here. So now I can do that and we'll average and I don't think
' it's a precedent. I think it's still, I don't think it is. I think it's simply a straight variance
and we figure in this case that it makes sense. So that was my comment Kate—she agreed.
1
F
Ledvina: Well I would agree with the staff report. I think there has been some good
changes. I know we've worked, and the developer has worked to show as little destruction
with the installation of Kings Road as possible. I guess I would support an additional
condition to make the construction plans for Kings Road contingent upon the tree
preservation. I think that should be part of it.
Scott: You'll have an opportunity to add that condition when you make the motion.
Ledvina: I'll give it a shot.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1
Mancino: And add to that something about moving the trees because the trees are red cedars.
I know that just 3 years ago we had, we moved 3 big, well 25 foot tall spruce onto our '
property and they're alive and they're doing well. They need to be babied and watered and
all that good stuff when they are moved but I think we got Big Joe, the big shovel, the earth
mover or tree mover and it's great. It works and I think we can do that. '
Conrad: How much did you pay for that?
Mancino: How much did I pay? Two bucks. Two bucks a tree. It was great.
Scott: Any other comments germane to this issue?
Mancino: Ali no. I have none. I think that they've been reviewed very well and I'm glad
that... participating to this degree and care about what's going on around them.
Scott: Jeff.
Farmakes: Actually in this case I think the system has been working pretty well. I really '
didn't like this development when I first saw it. In fact I put it in the top 5 of the last 4
years, I thought it'd be a real detriment the way it was laid out. I like what staff has done. '
They did a good job in revising the whole concept of how it lays out. I have no arguments
of the city's concerns in regards to who's going to pay for what ..affect their property. Every
time you get this type of development, adjacent to large lots, we have this problem. The '
problem is of course that when they put in road and figure out how they're going to do this,
we think in terms of 50 years. It's been said that nobody owns property. You just rent it for '
a while. You have to figure that someday these large lots are going to be developed and we
have to develop accordingly. I know that's not what you want to hear but nonetheless as
Chanhassen grows, that's what's happening. I would support the adjacent property owners... '
on the trees. I have no argument with that and I have no further comments.
Scott: Good. Can I have a motion please? I
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary
Plat #93 -11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 44 single family lots as shown on the plans dated '
May 31, 1994 and subject to the staff conditions listed in their report and 2 additional
conditions. Number 27 to read, the developer shall attempt to relocate existing trees as a part
of the woodland management plan. Number 28. Approval of the construction plans for
Kings Road shall be contingent upon tree preservation on the south side of the road.
Scott: Is there a second? I
30 '
n
IF1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Mancino: Second.
Scott: Motion on the floor has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Conrad: I saw Dave grimace. What did you think was wrong with that motion?
Hempel: If there's to be one tree removed and the rest are saved, I guess there's. If you
' could say if feasible.
Conrad: I don't know and I can't speak for Matt. I think we're looking for a feeling that
you feel that this is the best possible plan to protect as many trees as you can. I don't think
there's expectations here that gee, that everyone will live.
' Aanenson: ...tree preservation.
' Ledvina: Ah yes. Well how about significant tree preservation? Meaning, I guess that's not
a very good word either. Let's say, to the maximum extent feasible.
Mancino: Just let us know what it is. How wide is the road? 32?
Hempel: 31 back to back. That's curb to curb.
Ledvina: And again, what I'm thinking about is the use of additional engineering techniques
like retaining walls or locating other utilities in other areas that are feasible but will result in
' the tree preservation. Those types of things. Maybe taking an extra step to make that tree
preservation occur.
' Mancino: Making sure that staff is there and...
Scott: Is there any more discussion?
(Diane Harberts had left the meeting prior to voting on this item.)
' Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Preliminary Plat #93.11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 44 single family lots as shown
on the plans dated May 31, 1994 and subject to the following conditions:
1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utilities and street within all
' public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
1 31
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1
32
Maintenance access routes shall be provided to all storm water ponding. The routes are
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
'
2.
All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc
mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site grading unless
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All
'
areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood
fiber blanket.
'
3.
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and
'
utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council
approval.
4.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR) and comply with their
conditions of approval.
'
5.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
6.
No building permits shall be issued for Lots 1, 2, 3 and-4 4, Block -2 1 (phase II) until
,
the full 60 -foot wide right -of -way on Kings Road StFa&fd Lam— is dedicated to the
City and the street is constructed to urban standards. This area shall be platted as an
outlot until the full street is dedicated and built.
'
7.
The applicant shall escrow with the City their fair share of the cost to extend Kings Road
west of Country Oaks Road or a conveyance placed on the deed that these lots will be
'
responsible for 50% of the cost to upgrade Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road.
8.
The applicant shall provide revised detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm
event and provide ponding calculations in accordance with the City's ordinance for the
city engineer to review and approval based on the approved final set of grading and
'
drainage plans. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate storm water retention
ponds in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
'
9.
Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire
hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
10. The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to
1 the City for review.
11. All lots shall be prohibited to take direct access from Kings Road except for Phase 11
' 12. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat
for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement shall
' be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
13.
' e f the c«...,«c fd La e aeeess A temporary cul -de -sac should be constructed at the
end of White Oak Lane east of Country Oaks Road. The applicant shall dedicate
to the city a temporary turnaround easement for construction of the turnaround
' outside the right -of -way.
14. A portion of the utility connection fees the City collects from the property owners
' south of Kings Road shall- may be refunded to the applicant. The exact "€ffld
reimbursement will be determined based on actual construction costs for the
' installation of the utilities.
68fineetien Charge to the Gity.
15. The applicant/builder shall provide, at the time of building permit applicant, a tree
removal plan and grading plan for all wooded lots, specifically Lots 22 through 27 -2$
difeugh 24, Block 1.
16. The street grades shall be adjusted in an effort to minimize disruption to the adjacent
parcels or employ other means to reduce grading limits, i.e. retaining walls. The City
has allowed up to 10% street grades in an effort to minimize grading and tree
removal.
. A 5 foot wide concrete
sidewalk shall be constructed along the east side of Country Oaks Lane and the
north side of Kings Road in conjunction with the overall site improvements.
17. The developer's
. The private driveway at the end of White Oak Lane shall
be designed and constructed in accordance to the city's private driveway
ordinance (20 ft. wide, 7 ton design and 30 foot wide easement).
33
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
18.
r
19. The applicant may qualify for a credit towards the applicant's storm water
quantity fees. These -ate quantity fees should be applied to this development as '
outlined in the SWMP and/or modified accordingly pending adoption by the City
Council. The applicant shall escrow with the city the applicable SWMP fees until
such time as the City Council adopts the Surface Water Management Plan. '
20. The City will be requiring the inclusion of a drain tile system with the street and
utility construction. '
21. Additional erosion control measures will be required during the new home
construction process. '
22. A woodland management plan be prepared as per city ordinance Section 18.61(d).
23, The steFm waw pead shag be Placed iR an elat The intersection of Country '
Oaks Road shall be shifted westerly to improve sight distance in accordance to
MnDOT's design criteria. t
24. The acreage of park shall be determined by the Park and Recreation Commission.
f e Building Official noted in memo dated January
'
25. Compliance with the conditions o th g ry
21, 1994.
26. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to Kings Road being built between
Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road to the city's urban standards '
whether done by the applicant or city improvement project.
27. The developer shall attempt to relocate existing trees as a part of the woodland
management plan.
28. Approval of the construction plans for Kings Road shall be contingent upon tree
preservation to the maximum extent possible on the south side of the road.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
Conrad: And it goes to City Council?
34 1