7. Brenden Pond Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and VarianceCITY OF
le
i CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: 8/17/94 1 7
CC DATE: 9/26/94
CASE #: 94 -10 SUB 94 -5 REZ
I �.
�a
U
�a
CL
�a
�Q
�H
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 25.85 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF,
Residential Single Family
Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 25.85 Acres into 19 single family lots and four
outlots, Brenden Pond
A 10% street grade variance for Pondview Court
LOCATION: Southwest 1/ of Section 3, T116, R23, north of Hwy. 5, east of Hwy. 41, and
south of Minnetonka Middle School West
APPLICANT: David Gestach- Leland Paulson Construction
200 North Chestnut Street
PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District
ACREAGE: 25.85 acres
DENSITY: 1.3 Units per Acre -Gross 1.75 Units per Acre -Net
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - OI, Office Institutional, Minnetonka Middle School West
S - RR, Rural Residential District
E - RR, Rural Residential District
W - RR, Rural Residential District
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The majority of the site is being farmed. An Ag/Urban wetland is
located along the west side of the property and a Natural wetland is located at the southeast corner
of the site. Mature trees are concentrated within the southeast corner and easterly edge of the
wetland. The site generally slopes from southwest to northeast and from northeast to southwest, with
the low points in the center of the site.
Md
will
Mr. rm 4, hi
- �, III ■
FEE
II
Brenden Pond
�Y
August 17, 1994
Page 2
j
i
On September
1994, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of
this applicatioq.
before the Planning
',
There have been numerous revisions made since this item first appeared
Commission on August 17, 1994. Consequently, this report has been '
modified to reflect
these changes.
The applicants
have been very cooperative to incorporate the requested changes from the ,
Planning Commission
and staff.
PROPOSAL/SiIMMARY
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 25.85 acres into 19 single family lots. The property is '
zoned RR, Rural Residential and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RSF, Residential Single
Family.
The average lot size is 24,956 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.2 units per acre.
The site is located north of Hwy. 5, east of Hwy. 41, and south of Minnetonka Middle School
West. Access to the subdivision will be provided via an extension of Lake Lucy Road which '
will connect this subdivision with Highway 41 to the west and Galpin Boulevard to the east
(through the Ryl n property). A cul -de -sac, Pondview Court, extends north to service all of the
proposed lots with the exception of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1. I
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. There are four outlots shown on the plat. Outlot B is reserved for further subdivision
and future development. Outlot C contains a Natural Wetland, and Outlot D is a remnant lot
created as a result of the alignment of Lake Lucy Road. Outlot A will contain a private street
to provide acce s and utility service to the Mancino property located to the east of the subject
site.
The site has a dense concentration of mature trees along the easterly edge of the wetland and '
northwest of Outlot C. The majority of the trees northwest of Outlot C will be lost as a result
of the extension of Lake Lucy Road, however, the applicant will be required to replace them.
The proposed 7oodland management plan submitted by the applicant addresses some of the '
reforestation issues. Additional trees will be required to meet ordinance guidelines. A 30 foot
wide preservation easement located to the east of Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, Block 1, and Lots 1, and
2, Block 2 is proposed over the wooded areas. This easement will prevent any construction from ,
taking place and subsequently preserving the trees.
In reviewing thi� plat, staff also had to look at access to the Mancino parcel to the east. While
the Mancinos are not ready to develop or subdivide at this time, staff has asked them to give
consideration ash to how their property will be developed. Staff wanted to ensure that the '
Mancinos are not land locked. A private road will be constructed on Outlot A to service the
Mancino prope y as reflected in the revised plans submitted August 30, 1994.
w, Brenden Pond
August 17, 1994
Page 3
In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will
be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff
' report.
BACKGROUND
Gestach/Paulson has been working ith staff to develop this subdivision for couple of ears.
g P a P Y
The major stumbling block has been the location of Lake Lucy Road. A public hearing was held
' at the City Council's regular meeting on April 12, 1993 concerning the feasibility study for the
extension of Lake Lucy Road between Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard. This project
' was initially petitioned by two property owners, the Westside Baptist Church and property owned
by Gestach/Paulson/Klingelhutz, amassing nearly 36 acres immediately east of Trunk Highway
41.
During the process of preparing the feasibility, it became apparent that the Westside Baptist
Church no longer had an interest in this project and had subsequently rescinded their project
petition. Since the road needed to cross through the church property in order to serve the
Gestach/Paulson/Klingelhutz property, the church's lack of participation for all intents and
purposes had temporarily stalled the project. As such, the public hearing was tabled indefinitely.
' The renewed impetus for the Lake Lucy Road extension is the petition/support of this project by
the two immediately affected property owners (Jerome Carlson located adjacent to Trunk
' Highway 41 and the Gestach/Paulson proposed development located immediately east of the
referenced Carlson property). The project consists of the construction of Lake Lucy Road from
Trunk Highway 41 east approximately 1400 lineal feet as an urban roadway with concrete curb
' and gutter, storm sewer and trail and the installation of watermain and sanitary sewer. The
proposed road alignment for this project has been revised from the two alternative alignments
presented in the original feasibility study. The currently proposed alignment would follow more
' closely with the existing Lake Ann Interceptor easement through the Carlson property and would
reduce grading and tree loss impacts from that of the previously presented alignment options.
The proposed plat is consistent with the Lake Lucy Road street and utility project.
' REZONING
The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential
Single Family. The area to the east, west and south is zoned Rural Residential and is guided for
Residential Low Density. The area to the north of the site is zoned Office Institutional and
contains the Minnetonka Middle School West.
The 2000 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density Residential,
1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.3 units per acre and
1.75 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out.
LJ
Brenden Pond '
August 17, 1994
Page 4
This area is in t the MUSA area. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and the
rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. '
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 25.85 acre site into 19 single family lots. The density
of the proposed subdivision is 1.3 units per acre gross, and 1.75 units per acre net after removing
the roads and wetlands. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an
average lot size of 24,956 square feet. '
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. There are four outlots shown on the plat. Outlot B is reserved for further subdivision '
and future development. Outlot C contains a Natural Wetland, and Outlot D is a remnant lot
created as a res�lt of the alignment of Lake Lucy Road. Outlot A will contain a private street
to provide access to the Mancino property located to the east of the subject site.
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance.
WETLANDS '
According to the wetland delineation performed by Westwood, two wetlands have been identified
on -site and they are described as follows: ,
West Basin is an ag/urban wetland located along the central portion of the western boundary
of the site. About half of the wetland extends off -site to the west; approximately 5.17 acres of ,
wetland is on site. This wetland is DNR protected water, 10 -132W. An ordinary high water
mark has not been established for this wetland.
'
Southeast Basin is a large natural wetland located m the southeastern corner o f the property.
The majority of the wetland is off -site with only approximately 2.03 acres on -site. It does not
appear that the wetland will be impacted as a result of construction of Lake Lucy Road, however, ,
it is very important that type III erosion control be constructed around the wetland and well
maintained dung construction. There will be some fairly steep side slopes (3:1) adjacent to the
wetland. A pot ntial erosion problem exists; therefore, the side slope should be revegetated as '
soon as possible after site grading with erosion control blanket. This area will be constructed
under the City's improvement project and will be addressed on the construction plans. '
Regulations
The City admin Isters the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), however it does not appear that a '
wetland replacement plan will be necessary for this project. Staff would like the following
Brenden Pond
August 17, 1994
Page 5
information as part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland
data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils.
In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip
' monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10
to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an
ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal
structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
' The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will
serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the
stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow
future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In
general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding
' and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan
uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow
water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on
projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development
were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
' In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the
applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre - developed and post developed drainage areas
along with runoff calculations for pre - developed and post - developed conditions. Storm water
' runoff from the site shall maintain the pre - developed conditions for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm
duration. Water quality ponds will not be required since this development will connect to the
' City's construction project. the applicant will be assessed for storm drainage improvements in
lieu of SWMP fees. Storm water discharge to the ag/urban wetland will be pretreated in a
sedimentation pond to be constructed with the City's project. Detailed drainage plans and
calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. The grading plan
shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for
both pre - developed and post - developed conditions.
Water Ouality
' The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication
shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load
leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based
upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using
the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for
excavation of the pond. This fee is not applicable since the applicant will be assessed for the
Brenden Pond
August 17, 1994
Page 6
Lake Lucy Road storm drainage improvements. The appropriate drainage and utility easements
should be dedicated on the final plat.
Water Quantity
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city-
wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP
trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff
storage. Single - family residential developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre.
The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of
$35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the applicant's
surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with the SWMP
which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. An
analysis of the SWMP fees and Lake Lucy Road assessments will be performed in conjunction
with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process.
DRAINAGE
The applicant as petitioned the City to construct Lake Lucy Road. The City authorized
preparation of a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Trunk Highway
41 and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). On June 13, 1994, the City Council approved the
feasibility study and authorized preparation of construction plans and specifications for Phase I
of the roadway improvements. Phase I will include extending Lake Lucy Road from Trunk
Highway 41 to the intersection of proposed Pondview Court. The project includes construction
of streets, sidewalk, utilities and storm drainage improvements. This development is dependent
upon this project in order to develop. Without these improvements the plat is premature.
Therefore, preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon City Project No. 92 -12
being ordered and bid awarded. This development will be subject to assessment as a result of
the City's improvement project.
The east side of the development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed which is under the
jurisdiction of a Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. The west side of the
development is within the Lake Minnewashta Watershed which is under the jurisdiction of the
Mmnehaha Creek Watershed District. It appears the runoff from the site will drain into the
ag/urban wetland. The ag/urban wetland' will then drain into the natural wetland. The natural
wetland drains to the east through a series of other wetlands before it eventually discharges into
Lake Lucy. Since the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek
Watershed boundaries are being altered both watershed districts and the Board of Water and Soil
Resources should be informed of the alterations proposed to the watershed boundaries.
The storm watei runoff from the front yard areas and street will be conveyed via storm sewers
into a sedimeni basin that the City's improvement project will be constructing prior to
n
1
' Brenden Pond
August 17, 1994
Page 7
discharging into the ag/urban wetland. A sediment basin will be designed with the City's project
to hold back sand and silt running off from the proposed development and the Lake Lucy
roadway before it enters the ag/urban wetland. Staff believes that a sediment trap is sufficient
water quality treatment in this situation; however, the inlet from the sediment trap to the ag/urban
wetland should be located well away from the outlet that discharges the ag/urban wetland into
' the natural wetland. This will be modified on the City's construction plans.
GRADING
' (Please refer to sheet 2 of 7 for the radin plan. Grades shown on sheet 6 of 7 are
g g
inapplicable.)
' The site contains a significant grade variety of elevation changes and vegetation. There are steep
' slopes in the northwesterly and southerly portion of the site. The proposed plans show extensive
grading to develop the site for house pads and streets. A development plan should be prepared
or included with the grading plan indicating the type of dwelling to be built on each lot. There
' are some very steep slopes in the northwest corner of the development that will be re- graded.
Staff has met with the applicant and Mancinos in the field to determine access and utility service
location. Outlot 'A' has been set aside for a private driveway to service up to four home sites
on the Mancino parcel lying west of the ravine. Utility service will also be extended to the east
end of Outlot A. Staff reviewed another potential location for this access road at the southwest
corner of the property ( Outlot B); however, the slopes leading into the Mancino property here
' are very steep and resulting road grades would be greater than 10 percent. The extension of
Outlot A appears to be the best alternative since it would eliminate steep road grades and allow
some natural resource continuity between the wooded area on Mancino's property and the ravine
which extends from the wooded area south to the wetland. We believe this alignment will
minimize impact to the surrounding property and still provide a feasible access and utility service
for the west side of the Mancino parcel.
According to the City's SWMP, a water quality pond is proposed adjacent to the natural wetland
( Outlot Q. The applicant will be required to dedicate a portion of Outlot C as a drainage and
' utility easement.
EROSION CONTROL
' The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be
required around the natural wetland. The steep slopes may also require some form of terraced
erosion control fencing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval
in conjunction with final plat approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice
Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the
design process.
Brenden Pond
August 17, 199
Page 8 j
UTILITIES
With the construction of Lake Lucy Road, sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended to
serve this development. Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide the Mancino parcel
with street acce s and utility service. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to extend
utilities along with access for future extension into the Mancino parcel through Outlot A. The
utility plans are relatively straightforward. Water service will be extended from Lake Lucy Road.
A detailed anal Isis of the construction plans will be performed in conjunction with the final plat
submittal process. Fire hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. All utility
construction shad be in accordance to the 'City's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the utilities and street
improvements will be required for submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and
specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. In conjunction with the
final platting process, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the
City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public
improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The City will also be looking to acquire
land for construction of a well site on Outlot C.
STREETS
Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road extending from Trunk Highway
41. This segment of roadway will be built under the City's Improvement Project No. 92 -12.
Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use
Plan. It is al�o part of the City's Municipal State -Aid Route. According to the City's
subdivision ordinance, direct driveway access onto a collector street should be restricted or
controlled whenever feasible. Due to topographic constraints, staff believe there is no other
feasible access point available to these three lots. Staff is comfortable with Lots 1, 2 and 3
having driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff is also recommending that development of
Outlot B, depending on the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road, may be required to utilize the
interior street (Pond View Court).
The extension c
prepared a feasi
two other parce
The first parcel
located northea
options for acc(
potential alignn
parcel. There i
The Ryans hav
alignment of LE
finds, from a di
' Lake Lucy Road east of Pond View Court has not been finalized. The City has
)ility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road to Galpin Boulevard. There are
s of land that are directly; impacted by the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road.
(Ryan) is located just east of this development. The other parcel ( Mancino) is
t of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property owners several
is to the Mancino parcel. Staff has also met with the Ryans and discussed two
ants for Lake Lucy Road', which impact the development potential for the Ryan
no clear -cut alignment that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation.
submitted a preliminary plat for review. They have utilized the northerly
ce Lucy Road through their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and
sign standpoint, Lake Lucy Road will have to be revised slightly to align with
1
1
n
J
-, Brenden Pond
August 17, 1994
Page 9
' this development. Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through
the Ryan parcel which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very
' steep slopes. The resulting impact requires short, steep cul -de -sacs as well as tuck -under type
homes versus walkouts overlooking the wetlands, or delay development of the westerly 1/3 of
' the Ryan parcel until the Mancino parcel develops in an effort to maintain the natural terrain.
Access to the Mancino parcel through this development has been resolved. Since the applicant
is not platting Outlot B, this gives sufficient room for modifying Lake Lucy Road alignment to
' match with the Ryan parcel. Staff still supports the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 80 -foot wide right -of -way for the construction of Lake
Lucy Road through the development. The plans also propose a 60 -foot wide right -of -way and
construction of the City's standard roadway section for Pond View Court. This typical section
will allow for sufficient room for a sidewalk if so desired to access Lake Lucy Road to the
' school immediately north of the development. Street grades range from 0.5% to 10% which is
over the City's maximum grade allowed. Staff believes this grade is warranted in an effort to
minimize grading and tree loss on the site. Staff is in support of granting a variance to the 10%
' street grade. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be
required as part of the final plat submittal. Access to the Mancino parcel will be through Outlot
A via a private street.
Staff was directed by the Planning Commission to evaluate the environmental resources on the
site and the adjacent parcel to the east (the Mancino property) before making a recommendation
' on the access issue. The westerly portion of the Mancino property is densely wooded with
mature trees and contain a ravine. Building a street up to city standards through the Mancino
property would not be feasible as it will remove a substantial number of trees. The only solution
' to preserving the trees and allowing some development on the site is to access it via a private
street. Current city ordinances allow a maximum number of 4 homes to be served via a private
street. Staff has brought this issue to the attention of the Mancinos and they have indicated that
' they do not intend to have more than 4 homes on that portion of their property.
PARK DEDICATION
The Recreation Section of the iv identifies n h r Com
pees e Plan de tifies this site as lying within the park
service area of Herman Field Park and the Minnetonka Intermediate School campus.
A trail is identified on the comprehensive trail plan, running east/west along the extension of
Lake Lucy Road and will be constructed as a part of this future road project.
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on August 9, 1994, and
recommended the Planning Commission require a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of
Pondview Court extending north to the school property be incorporated into the construction
I
Brenden Pond
August 17, 1994
Page 10
plans for Brend�n
Pond. The applicant is to construct this sidewalk and convey any and all
easements requiied
by its alignment to the city.
The Park and Recreation
Commission also recommended full park
and trail fees be collected per
city ordinance in
i
lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot
Lot
Home
Area Width
Depth
Setback
Ordinance
15,000 90'
125'
30' front/rear
10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1
20,518 201.38'
125'
30'/50'
10'
Lot 2
21,973 175.57'
153'
30'/50'
10'
Lot 3
22,874 164.57'
145'
30'/50'
10'
Lot 4
24,599 107.24'
175'
30'/50'
225' corner lot
10'
Lot 5
15,124 100.00'
155'
30'/50'
10'
Lot 6
18,070 95.00'
191'
30'/50'
10'
Lot 7
23,030 95'
239'
30'/50'
10'
Lot 8
24,486 95.00'
253'
30750'
10'
Lot 9
29,799 87.41' on curve
251'
30750'
10'
Brenden Pond
August 17, 1994
Page 11
Lot 10
37,238
85.81' on curve
270'
30750'
161,300
Outlot D
5,207
10'
Lot 11
31,679
89.11' on curve
275'
30750'
10'
Lot 12
23,944
100'
255'
30730'
10'
Lot 13
34,419
55' on curve
210'
30730'
10'
Lot 14
27,857
60' on curve 178'
30'/30'
10'
Lot 15
24,448
77' on curve 212'
30730'
10'
Lot 16
24,097
155'
238'
30'/30'
10'
Lot 17
23,699
108'
267'
30'/30'
10'
BLOCK 2
Lot 1
21,760
95'
228'
30'/NA
10'
Lot 2
24,544
139.73'
176'
30730'
10'
Outlot A
7,724
Outlot B
110,974
Outlot C
161,300
Outlot D
5,207
n
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
�y
Brenden Pond
The applicant
August 17, 1994
concentrations of
Page 12
portion of Lots
,
Wetland in Block
1 244,807
site leaving those
Lake Lucy Rd
Block 1. The
'
grading plan has
71,667
a large number
Pondview Lour'
56,526
I
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
,
The applicant
as submitted a Preliminary Tree Inventory Plan. The site contains significant
concentrations of
mature trees along the iwest edge of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, and easterly
portion of Lots
and 2 of Block 2. Grading will only take place over portions of Lots 1 and 2, ,
Block 2, with the
exception of a 30 foot wide conservation easement located at the edge of the
site leaving those
trees intact. Grading will also affect a portion of the trees located on Lot 12,
Block 1. The
applicant will be required to replace these trees as required by ordinance. The '
grading plan has
been revised to eliminate any clear cutting of trees on Outlot B. Unfortunately,
a large number
Hof trees will be lost due to the extension of Lake Lucy Road.
'
All of the ve e
g
ted areas that are being saved shall be reserved b a conservation easement.
� g P Y
The Landscaping
and Tree Preservation requirements state that a landscape buffer is required
when a subdivi,
ion plat is contiguous with a collector street. Required buffering shall consist of ,
berms and landscape
materials consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and /or a tree preservation
area. The plan
must identify plant material locations along Lake Lucy Road as well as planting
within each front
yard. Appropriate financial security will be required. This plan should show '
the type and size
of trees proposed to be planted as well as the location of berms along Lake Lucy
Road. A reforestation
plan will attempt to replace all those trees being lost due to grading and
road extension.
The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Staff is recommending that the '
applicant work
with staff to develop a reforestation plan to replace the tree removal. Staff
believes that th�
Lake Lucy Road project will most likely include a streetscape plan similar to ,
Minnewashta Porkway.
The following constitutes our calculation of the required forestation and tree replacement:
There is a 16 %baseline canopy coverage (3.2 acre). Tree canopy within a designated wetland
is excluded fro calculation. The required post development canopy coverage is 25 % or a total
of 5 acres of try canopy. To meet the minimum canopy coverage requirements, the developer
would need to develop a forestation plan !for 1.8 acres (5.0 -3.2) which would require the planting
of 72 trees. (1.8 x 40). In addition, because the developer is removing canopy coverage that is '
required to meet their minimum canopy coverage, they must replace the removed canopy area at
a rate of 1.2 tirr s the canopy coverage area being removed. Since the applicant did not provide
these calculations, staff has estimated that the removed canopy coverage area is approximately ,
107,500 square feet. The replacement planting is then calculated at 129,000 square feet (107,500
x 1.2). The i umber of trees required for replacement planting is calculated at 119 trees
Brenden Pond
August 17, 1994
Page 13
(129,000/1089). The total tree planting requirement as part of the development for forestation and
tree replacement is 191 trees.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
' On August 17, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled this application and directed
staff to address the following issues:
' * A tree inventory and landscaping plan be submitted to the city for review and approval.
* Evaluation of the environmental resources on the site and the adjacent parcel to the east.
* Resolve the access issue to the Mancino's property and investigate if there is a feasible
way of providing a street to serve their property.
The applicants (David Gestach & Lee Paulson) and their engineer (Alan Larson, Engelhardt &
Associates), owners of the property located east of the site (Sam and Nancy Mancino) and their
surveyor (Ted Kemna), and Engineering and Planning staff met on August 26, 1994. After
walking the site and evaluating access option, all parties reached concurrence on the issue raised
' by the Planning Commission.
On September 7, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed this item for the second time. At that
' meeting, the owner of the neighboring property located northwest of the subject site, Mr. Dennis
Clark, stated that there is a large number of mature trees located on Lot 12, Block 1, that have
not been shown on the plans. These trees will be lost as a result of the grading. Mr. Clark
requested year round buffering between his property and the proposed subdivision. The applicant
has submitted revised plans showing the wooded area on Lot 12. A large number of these trees
will be removed as a result of grading, however, they will be replaced as required in the
reforestation ordinance.
Mr. Clark also had concerns over increased drainage into his property. The Planning Commission
added a condition requiring the applicant and staff evaluate potential concerns as it relates to
potential run on for the adjacent property owner from Lots 10 -13, Block 1. The Assistant City
Engineer evaluated the drainage with the applicants engineer. Due to site grading, the front yards
of the homes will be draining onto Pondview which will result in less drainage onto Mr. Clark's
property than there currently is today. Upon completion of the site grading, staff will further
' evaluate if a drainage swale would be necessary. Staff felt that this can be easily modified in the
field.
I The Planning Commission approved this application unanimously with the conditions outlined in
the staff report.
Brenden Pond
August 17, 199
Page 14 '
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: ,
REZONING I
"The City Council approves of Rezoning #94 -5 for property zoned RR to RSF for Brenden Pond
as shown on the plans dated August 30, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: ,
1. The app 'cant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of
approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The '
developr�ent contract shall be recorded against the property.
2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #94 -10." ,
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -10 for Brenden Pond for 19
single family lots and 4 outlots with a variance to the street grade (10 %) on Pondview Court as
shown on the plans received August 30, 1994, subject to the following conditions: '
1. All ar 4
disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched
or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the ,
city's (>
MPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or
greater shall
be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
'
2. The applicant
n landscaping reforestation plan on
shall work with the City in developing a andscap g o p
the site.
The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be
protected
'
by a conservation easement. Tree conservation areas are shown on attachment
#1. The
applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of these easements. The
conservation
easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and
underbrush.
All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be
removed.
Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation
easement
and the applicant shall provide the legal description. A total number of 185 trees '
will be
for the forestation and tree replacement on this site. Financial guarantees
required
acceptable
le to the city will be required to ensure compliance. This plan shall include a list
of all tees
and size proposed to be removed. The plan shall be submitted prior to '
final plat
approval. Staff shall review the need for screening along Lots 10 -12, Block
1 as it
elates to the existing single family home to the west.
3. A snow
fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to
grading.
Brenden Pond
August 17, 1994
Page 15
4. Building Department conditions:
' a. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of
foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final
plat approval.
b. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to
issuance of any building permits.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
1 with final plat conditions of approval.
6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of
Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their
conditions of approval.
7. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall
' be a minimum of three feet above the 100 -year high water level. All storm water ponds
shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the fast ten feet at the normal water level and no more
than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes.
r8. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
9. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from Lake Lucy
Road with the exception of lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1.
10. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is
to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant
to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1.
b. Pending review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable.
'C. Radius of cul -de -sacs shall be 45 feet, not 42 feet.
1 d. Fire hydrants shall be located a maximum of 300 feet apart.
I.
Brenden Pond
August 17, 1994
Page 16
11. Park and Recreation conditions:
a. 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of Pondview Court extending north ,
to the school property shall be incorporated into the construction plans for Brenden
ond. The applicant is to construct this sidewalk and convey any and all '
e sements required by its alignment to the city.
b. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land '
acquisition and /or trail construction.
12. The pro osed development will be responsible for a water quantity user fee of $35,501
assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The water quantity and quality fees may or
may not be assessed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road improvement project assessment
methodology. The water quantity fees will be negotiated based on the developers
contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality
are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications
to the f�es, they will be changed prior to final plat. I
13. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned '
in accordance with City and/or State codes.
14. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public; right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
15. The a icant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with ,
PP� P P
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review 1
and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review.
16. All uti lity and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest '
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans arid specifications shall be 'submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
17. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinan�e. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and '
will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Any wetland alteration be mitigated in
accordrince with city ordinances and state laws as it relates to the orientation of Lake
Lucy Road. ,
i
1
•� Brenden Pond
August 17, 1994
Page 17
' 18. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post-developed storm water
calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and high water level
calculations in existing basins /wetlands and individual storm sewer calculations between
each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are
' being utilized.
19. 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 width shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
20.
Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City ordering
Improvement Project No. 92 -12 and awarding a bid for the contract.
'
21.
Outlot A shall be conveyed to the City for access to the Mancino parcel. A private street
shall be designed and constructed by the applicant in accordance to the City's private street
'
ordinance over Outlot A. This private street shall serve a maximum of 4 single family
homes. Utility service (sanitary sewer and water) shall also be extended to the east line
of Outlot A.
22.
The applicant shall dedicate to the city at no cost the future right -of -way for Lake Lucy
Road through Outlot B.
23.
The developer and /or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive
objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing requirements
and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property."
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Planning Commission minutes dated September 7, 1994.
2.
3.
Memo from Bill Weckman, Carver County dated August 9, 1994.
Letter from Ceil Strauss dated August 8, 1994.
4.
Letter from Minnegasco dated August 1, 1994.
5.
6.
Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated August 31 and August 4, 1994.
Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 5, 1994, and 1/29/93 Dwelling Type
Designation memo
7.
Memo from Mark Littfin dated July 22, 1994.
'
8.
Planning Commission minutes dated August 17, 1994.
9.
Preliminary plat dated August 2, 1994.
Planning
TED IN
Public
Meeting - September 7, 1994
Lee Paulson
St. Bonifacius
Dennis Clark
6651 Hazeltine Blvd.
David Stockdal,
7210 Galpin Blvd.
David Gestach
Brian Klingelh
tz
Sam Mancino
6620 Galpin Blvd.
Peter Davis
6640 Galpin Blvd.
Sharmin Al -Ja presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments?
Conrad: May I have one of Dave. I've got to talk about Lake Lucy. It's deemed a
collector street. Did we do a traffic count? When it was reviewed, do we know what it has
to, what the future traffic's going to be on it Dave?
Hempel: A few years back there was a Eastern Carver County Transportation Study
predicting the 4affic flows and counts eventually throughout the city providing east/west
connections. North/south streets and designating... arterial kind of collector street. This area
has been designated as a collector type of road. I don't know off the top of my head what
the traffic projections are.
Conrad: There s no traffic to the west that is really going to search this out. I can't, there's
just no traffic that's going to seek this road out so it really is servicing only this area that we
are now lookin for development. The Carlson's may be another development but really this
is a roadway that's just going to serve the neighborhood basically.
Hempel: Well it does provide for the east/west continuity between Galpin to Powers Blvd
versus going all the way up to Highway,' 7 or going to Chaska Road. This is actually a vital
24
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
connection, east/west connection. Another east/west connection through is being provided to
the south through the Carlson/Song/Lundgren development where it was part of the...
approximately 2 miles south of this location.
Conrad: Okay, it's an east/west connection. So when you say that to me does that mean
you're saying it's serving more than the neighborhoods? With that 40 houses, this street will
service 100 houses in this developing valley.
Hempel: That's correct. And additional city wide traffic.
Conrad: Going where?
Hempel: Going to another connection from the northwest art of town to et to the
P g P g
downtown versus going down Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin to Trunk Highway 5. It's not
imaking any shortcut I wouldn't think but it does provide a viable east/west travel route.
1 Conrad: Have we made any compromises by terming this a collector? Have we, are we
forcing a major road in when a major road is not necessary?
Hempel: The roadway section that we're proposing to build here is not much larger than the
standard street right -of -way. Our standard street for a residential neighborhood is 31 feet
wide. This street is proposed to be built at 32 feet wide. There is additional right -of -way
though that's being required with this to provide when the trail/sidewalk, the 8 foot wide
trail/sidewalk will give us larger boulevard areas for planting...
Conrad: Okay. That's all.
Scott: Any other comments? If the applicant would like to make a presentation, please do
' so. It's not a requirement. If you'd like to, please go ahead.
Dave Gestach: Dave Gestach, 8001 Acorn Lane, Chanhassen. I guess basically we just ... and
we hope that you do approve it so we can go to Council.
Scott: Good, thank you. This is a public hearing. Just a show of hands. How many people
are here to speak at the public hearing for this particular project. Okay. Can I have a motion
to open the public hearing please.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
25
I
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 '+
�J
Dennis Clark: My name is Dennis Clark. I live at 6651 Hazeltine Boulevard. I was
wondering, Sharmin could we use that overhead again and possibly enlarge that. Enlarge it a
little bit.
Al -Jaff: I don' think we can do that. '
Dennis Clark:
Okay. Actually I'm kind of Johnny come lately on this project. For some
reason I was not
served notice on this development. I received my first notice last Friday. ,
I've been out of
town since Friday. Came back in town Sunday. Had Tuesday to even
prepare for this!
Staff has been giving me a crash course on this and I definitely have some
concerns just because
probably I have gone over staff notes and gone through everything but
I kind of made
a wish list here of what are some of the concerns I have. I think I'm just
going to mark
on there where my house fillies on the 8 acres that I have.
Scott: Yeah, that
would help. None of us see our home from that vantage point very often
SO.
Dennis Clark:
You only see my house in the winter time. I've been pretty much aware that
this has been tabled
before or presented before but frankly I was a little shocked that this was
going through this
bit of preparation
fast. From August 17th up until today so obviously there's been quite a
by staff on this and maybe this thing is a done deal. But I guess a couple
of the specific Issues
that I have which concern my lot are the northwest development of the
property that we're
I
talking about which seems to be somewhat ignored in the notes that I've ,
little to the northwest lots in to the trees. I had an
seen. see very)
addressing regards
in here. I'm hearing
opportunity to talk
with a few people and what type of homes are going
anywhere from
2
$250,000.00 to $500,006.00 homes. I question, I'm not a realtor but I have ,
been here for
1/2 years. I was in the market. I question who's going to spend that kind of
money on Lot
13 an d 14 next to probably a 100 feet from a Minnetonka basketball court. So
there's some issues
that I'm questioning; plus the fact that according to the way the plat is
here and the way
the foliage is or the way the excavating is, it can't be done without taking a
lot more trees that
don't even show up on this plat. A lot more trees. Very mature trees and
I'm specifically
talking about Lot 12. I'm concerned about Lot 11, which if you look at the
contour line of
Lot 11, and maybe you've never had a chance to be back there. Lot 11,
where the house
is, is a gravel pit. It's probably 20 to 30 foot drop so when I look at the
notes and see where
you're talking about significant grading, I think that's a pretty lame
word. We're talking
about very significant grading and I guess I don't understand how it's
going to lay in the contour of the land the way it is unless that's being filled or I don't know.
I haven't had enough time to get these questions answered. The tree inventory. I think that
even as of today, I don't know what the tree inventory is. I don't have the updated notes, if
there is some. I don't know if it's been presented but I think there's considerable more trees
26
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
than what are shown on the map and I guess from where my standpoint is, the front and back
of my house. Now when I come to my driveway, from what I understand, I'm going to be
looking at, there's quite a bit of elevation. I'm going to be looking at the backs, or the
backyards of 3 homes. These people will be kind of hovering over me. So be it but am I
also going to be looking at 3 Menards pole sheds coming into my yard? Is it going to look
like Milacs Lake or what, I don't know. I'm very concerned about that. I think for the
acreage that I have, just specifically in getting to some of the points, I'm going to be looking
for some concessions and some buffer trees and I think this should be definitely an issue
before we continue with this. Not well we'll take care of you. I want to know that I'm
looking for some year round buffer trees that are bordering my property if this is a done deal.
I think I deserve that and I'm thinking evergreen type trees, 10 to 12 feet tall. This is going
to give me some of the privacy that I deserve with that size of a lot. This will devaluate my
lot if this does happen. I cannot develop this lot that I have. This acreage is, it's a done
deal. You can see it's kind of laid out a little goofy there and it is a nice lot. I've kind of
been in this movie before. I just came from probably one of Shorewood's most embarrassing
developments. I lived adjacent to one that took 7 years, 4 townhomes. Christmas Lake
Woods. And there was a lot of promises on trees and trees that weren't going to be removed
and in the final, it didn't happen. And the saws were going until 10:00 at night, on Saturdays
and Sundays and the townhomes were $170,000.00. Way over priced 10 years when they
' started the thing. The market fell 14% and the project sat. So again I'm not a financial
wizard on this stuff but I question, to me this looks like a trailer park layout and from
Highway 41, the way these homes are going to get stacked across here, again I need to know
a little bit more about the project. Maybe I'm coming in here late and I don't even know
what my legal rights are as far as getting my notices and what have you. I would recommend
to the city that these things be sent certified. Jerome Carlson, who just recently purchased
this plat over here, his name is on the plat but the person I purchased the plat from 2 1/2
years ago, still his name is on this plat. So I don't know where things are slipping through
the cracks there. The trees in question on the south side, in Lots 1. Or I'm sorry, 13, 12, 11
again was a gravel pit. I'm talking about probably 100 trees that are fairly mature.
Anywhere from 12 to 30 feet tall. Evergreens again. In other words, they hold quite a bit of
cover. I've done some measuring today. Took the day off and went out and measured this
1 stuff. Working with the contours and that. A lot of trees got to be taken out. The next thing
that I'd like to point out is, there's already quite a bit of forestation on this property this
summer. This thing was clear cut in a day. The whole 25 acres of popals that have grown
up over the years. So you can see right away where I have some question about, I don't
know if I'm going to use the word trust but I think we would have been further off and
maybe what we had here for foliage. These were anywhere from 7 to 12 foot, even taller
popal trees. Maybe they're worthless, I don't know but didn't like it. Just put it that way.
There's been no communication from the developers on this project. I think that's rude when
they're going to go in and if you can't even talk to the people that you're getting up against.
27
n
j
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Maybe from a developer's
standpoint, don't talk to the neighbors. I don't know. Just my
opinion. I'm kind
of on a lowland. I rn' below this, you can see all this drainage here where
it does go back
out on the lake again but I'm kind of what I would consider a lowland.
When you start
taking this square footage on house roofs here, right next to my property line
is my drywalls
stem. I had an opinion done on that today. When you've got water coming
down these hills
and you've got natural vegetation, I've got a sump pump in my house that
runs continuously
when it rains. You know what's going on there. I've always wondered
how my drywal}
was doing. Now I'm even going to have more concerns about the drywell
when you start
taking this type of square footage and even sending that much more water
down, particularly
on my lot. A couple other questions that I've got is, I'm trying to get the
Minnetonka Sc�}�
ool system to quite using fertilizer on their lawns up there. They've got the
most beautiful lawns
in the world. No dandelions, nothing. All that water comes right down
that drainage di
ch into that pond. That pond is getting worse and worse every year and I
think we've got,
we're making some headway there and this pond is turning in to be a green t
slime ball. It does
hold fish. I do feed it minnows. I spend about $300.00 a year throwing
spawn... minnows
in there for crappies and what have you. And when I look at this buffer
around the lake
this 10 foot buffer. I mean I don't know what the regulations are and where
we're headed oI
� this stuff but this pond'Is going to be ruined. Just plain and simple. When
you start puttin�
lawns in there, you've got a problem. 10 foot buffer means nothing. We've
got problems coming
from Minnetonka so again this is just another point that I have concerns
about. I don't
know if it's been addressed or what the situation is. Is there going to be
docks on this pond?
How is this pond going to be preserved? Can ... put a dock on this thing?
Can he fish off
it? What's this going to I look like from the road? You actually do have a
public access from
the road. You can fish from shore. From the highway side so I don't
know what this
is going to bring. This feeder road. My kids get on the school bus on this
road and we've
had near accidents with a stopping red flashing light. When cars come over
that hill going north,
trucks, 70 mph easy. 80 coming over. When this road goes in here,
you're going to
have some problems. I'll go on record on that. You're going to have '
problems with that
road. The road's in, that's great but unless there's going to be some lights
there, people coming
in and out of there, there's going to be accidents there. Just they can't
help it. It's a blind
spot. So when you're coming over that road and ... 70 mph is not even, ,
they go faster than
that coming over. I would like to see that whole thing, with the park in
there and with
the school. When you get down by Chaska and that school system and that's
all 40 mph. This
is still 55. And so I think you should look at slowing that traffic down on
TH 41. I don'
know what powers you've got in that. So I guess my main concern is,
getting back to
my own personal problem, is I am definitely looking for something that is
going to assist
my view of what once was fairly ... woods and nice woods and a meadow to
buffer that all and
I'll leave it at that for now. And I again, like I said, I'm kind of looking
to see an updat�
would say you're
on this tree survey because this isn't close. It's not even close. And I
more than welcome to walk some of the ... lot. It's not on there so I've got
28 I
II
' Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
a problem with staff saying we're r eady to approve. A ll you've got to do is work a few
things out. I'm not ready and I've had 24 hours to do it. Basically a bad night's sleep also
because I think this is going pretty fast. Maybe someone has some other comments. Thanks.
' Scott: Good, thank you. Just a couple of comments. One question I think since we're
talking about preservation... I think it's entirely appropriate to consider a 30 foot preservation
area along the westerly sides of Lots 11, 12 and 13. If there's significant vegetation there,
' there's no reason why that can't be continued around. Dave, drainage. My understanding is
that the drainage from this development will be conveyed down a storm sewer running down
whatever street that is into the holding ponds down below so conceivably there could be some
drainage going off the back but that'd be through lawns or something like that so you don't
have a concern about Mr. Clark's property as to drainage. Okay. And 10 foot buffer around
the pond, that seems not to be in keeping with our wetland plan. Is it actually 10 feet? Is it
more than that? Or is it because of the nature of the wetland.
Aanenson: No, it's the buffer setback into the wetland. Building setback. What you're
' talking about is ... minimum landscaping.
Scott: Yeah. So from the actual property we could be looking at 60 -70 feet. 50 feet. Okay.
And then speed limits on state highways. The State, that says it all I guess. State of
Minnesota. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Any other comments on this particular
issue? Yes sir.
' Peter Davis: Yes, I'm Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Boulevard. Part of the, this
Brendon Pond development includes a recommendation of some park dedication land that
would tie the street to provide an access into the Minnetonka school. I was hoping to get
more recognition made to the fact that when the Lake Lucy extension goes in, that this is
going to be a fairly active path and I was hoping to see more recognition to the trail system
as part of the outlots that would be placed on the north side which would provide for a very
natural path for a lot of people extending east all the way to the other trail systems because
you can go out through the top of the school where there's already an extension into other
parts further north of Chanhassen. I was hoping to see more language in the recommendation
that would provide from where that road alignment of the trail system... pedestrian standpoint,
' make more of a route.
Aanenson: I'm sorry, I'm not following you.
Peter Davis: Right now what's going to happen is there's only language that talks about an
access point up in here to the school. In terms of when Lake Lucy gets developed in this
direction to the Ryan property, I was hoping to see more language built that would pull the
1 29
I.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
trail system to the north so you'll have more of a natural...
Aanenson: That s the plan. That's the plan for Lake Lucy that there's a trail system along
the northern side. That's what the Ryan's engineer was saying, they would prefer to have it
on the south side but it was always planned to have it on the north side because that's '
where...
Peter Davis: 0 cay, I didn't see that. '
Aanenson: Th is where we believe most of the traffic will be going. To get up to the
junior high.
Peter Davis: Right. Okay.
Hempel: There's also a sidewalk being proposed along the west side of the street to connect
from the trail horn Lake Lucy Road north.
Peter Davis: at was my question. It really wasn't clear how that was going to tie back in.
Thank you.
Scott: Good , th� ank Y ou. An other comments?
Y
Sam Mancino: Yes, Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Boulevard. Over the course of the last few ,
months we have been pleased to be able , to work out most of the issues between ourselves
and Gestach - Paulson people with the help of staff on this and I think that we've got the right
contingencies fpr future potential development if we ever chose to do that. The one issue that
I'd like to raise here, you are considering platting, as it is properly laid out here. There's a
portion called Outlot B which will be considered at a later date. The reason for Outlot B is
to allow future alignment pending determination of the way that Lake Lucy Road extends to
the east, which is the Ryan property. If in the course of that decision the road takes the
northerly route, what will probably happen is that it will have to cross that finger of wetland
and trees whic can do a fair amount of damage there. The question before us I guess is,
would that lot by itself allow enough room for mitigating the damage done there or would '
that have to be taken into account now. A question. '
Aanenson: Are you talking about wetland mitigation?
Sam Mancino: Yes. Because you will be going through, if the road takes the northerly
alignment, would it require some wetland mitigation that this lot would not be large enough
to accommoda le or wouldn't be appropriate to accommodate here? And does that then argue
30 1
IPlanning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
for the southerly alignment of that road to avoid that problem?
Hempel: I guess first of all it'd have to be classified as a wetland. From our guidelines from
our Water Resource Coordinator, the wetland ... would have to review the site to determine if it
qualifies for a wetland status. It would be, if we're impacting it with ... assume that we would
have to mitigate for our impact.
Sam Mancino: I guess this was an issue that if the road takes a southerly alignment, it's
probably a minimal concern.
Aanenson: ...it would have to meet the Wetland Conservation Act but that doesn't mean it
has to be done ... I think your point's well taken and that goes back to our—trying to preserve
wetlands on the site.
Sam Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to make a comment? Sir.
Brian Klingelhutz: My name is Brian Klingelhutz and I was involved with Dave and Lee.
We bought the property about 10 years ago. We've been working on developing it since
then. You know off and on. Not constantly but when we bought the property it was all, Mr.
Brendon made his living off of farming all that land so it was just all fields and there were
trees around the borders but where they have the 30 foot section there protecting those trees,
1 that is protecting all the trees that are mature. So there is a lot more trees there but there's
just little scrub trees that you can't even walk through so. I want to point out that we've
worked with Mr. Carlson. We've worked with Mancino's. Maybe we didn't address Mr.
Clark enough. He wanted to buy some property from us. We never made that deal. I don't
know if he's upset about that or you know, but you can't please everybody you know. I
pulled in his driveway this afternoon to talk to him. I was in his driveway looking over
' towards our property. The property that's going to be developed and you couldn't even see
that property from his house. You know there's so many trees between his house and the
property right now so, I mean it wouldn't do any good to plant any more trees there because
you'd wipe out some of the trees that are really there. So I'm just saying that we've done
everything we could. I hope you, you know we have nothing against Ryan's development but
we've been working on our's for a couple years and so I just don't want you to tie our two
together. We've put a lot of planning into our's. Just because you tabled their's, because
we're right next to each other but we've been working. As you can see that it's 25 acres and
' we only have 19 lots in there which ... so I just hope you pass it.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing
31
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
none, can I hav a motion to close the public hearing please?
Nutting moved Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Ron.
Nutting: Well I guess I was pleased to see that the property owners and the Mancino's and
staff were able io address the issue of the outlot and the private drive and to get that resolved.
I'm not tying this project together with the Ryan project. They are connected by the Lake
Lucy Road but I think what we, the consensus from staff and the people up here is that the
southerly alignment made more sense and that's the alignment that we're talking about with
this plan. ShoA of some new concerns or issues that were raised tonight, I think I am in a
position to go f rward but I guess I have a little bit of confusion on the tree inventory and
exactly what's ere. We've taken great'; pains to address that issue on the easterly side
bordering the ancino's property. I don't know if staff has any input to this but I'd like to
just understand a little bit more about the impact that we're going to have on the property
owner to the west because we've been careful in this development to address the needs of
everybody and I just need to, I'm not saying I'm not ready to go forward with it but I just
don't know enough.
Al -Jaff: We ca work with the applicant to make sure that all the trees that are on the site
right now be reflected on a tree survey and then we will ... would have to be replaced
according to our ordinance at a rate of 1.2. But I think that this is an issue that we can work
out.
Nutting: Okay) That you, with the developer and the property owner to the west, okay.
Okay. I have no further comments.
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: In re
accuracy in tern
Sharmin Al -Jaf
Ledvina: Base
site to look at i
Al -Jaff: There
3 to the tree inventory. Is that accurate and I guess what is the level of
of the size of tree and have you reviewed that?
s answer was not picked up on the tape.
on the comments that have been made here, you said you've been out to the
it? Okay.
were some trees, spruces; located to the west of the site that are not shown on
32
I.
0
1
l
ti
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
this and we will ... that they be shown between now and the Council meeting. Any trees that
will be removed would have to be replaced at...
Ledvina: Are those spruce trees within the grading limits, do you believe or are they outside?
Al -Jaff: Some of them are. Two of them are within the grading limits because...
Ledvina: Okay. The adjacent homeowner had a comment about pole sheds or whatever and
I just would want him to know that of course the city has ordinances as it relates to a
construction of buildings and out buildings are, you know have to be done by permit and size
limitations, etc so, and in a residential, high quality residential neighborhood you will not see
that scenario, I don't believe. I think the request for additional buffer trees, if they're
necessary, would seem to make sense. Have you had an opportunity to assess that need at
this time?
Al -Jaff: There's going to be over 100 trees that will need to be planted on the subdivision.
g g P
So I'm sure that there will be some trees that we could add there if there is need for it.
Ledvina: Okay. Maybe we could add a recommendation to that effect directing the applicant
to intensify year round plantings in that area. I think that might be appropriate. I don't want
to be real specific but again, I want to make sure that that screening does occur if needed.
And just a follow up on drainage. Again, the adjacent homeowner is correct. There will be
increase impervious area there, and it seems to me that if I look at the plat and the
topography for Lots 10 -13, Block 1, it would appear that a drainage swale along the back of
those lots would be very easily done. You know within the grading limits there and provide
or prevent I should say run on onto his parcel and potential problems that may occur. Dave,
did you have any thoughts on that? Do you think that's a reasonable thing or do you see any
concerns with that?
Hempel: I actually believe that the amount of runoff going to the west of this development
will actually be lower than the natural conditions that are out there today. The front yard
area, the front half of the house will be directed towards the street which will be conveyed
then through storm sewers to a sediment basin. It will only be the back yard grass areas
essentially that will continue to drain to the west. The westerly edge of the cul -de -sac
appears to be about the high point of the natural terrain out there right now. It's probably
actually reducing the amount of runoff running west.
1 Ledvina: Okay. Even with the construction of the houses in that area?
Hempel: That's correct.
33
-
P
Planning Comnussion
I
Meeting - September 7, 1994 '
Ledvina: Okay
Well maybe perhaps we can direct the applicant to evaluate that condition to
make sure that
-we're not causing a run on type of situation to the neighboring property. I
i
wouldn't want
�o see that occur. The issue as it relates to buffer around the wetland area or
the pond area.
INow how do we classify' this pond? Is this like an ag urban?
Al -Jaff: It is an
ag urban...buffer that wraps around the wetland.
Ledvina: Okay.
Is that by definition or is there some leeway in establishing that buffer zone?
Aanenson: They're
at 20. The average.,.
Ledvina: Okay,
but it can range 0 to 20, is that what you're saying? Okay. Would there be
any down side
in increasing that buffer area to 20 feet in that area? It appears to me that
that's a conservation,
much of that area is a conservation zone.
Scott: Tree preservation.
Ledvina: Or tree
preservation and also there doesn't appear to be grading in that area so it
appears that that
buffer strip could be increased to 20 feet
Aanenson: ...in
the conservation easement, you can't...
Ledvina: Well
from what I, you know there is the entire area here and I don't know if that
conservation, tree
conservation easement encompasses the entire shore area of that pond so.
Aanenson: Th
is what we would look to evaluate ... go back and evaluate that.. ,
Ledvina: Is it
need little more
reasonable at this time to recommend 20 foot buffer or are you saying you
time to evaluate that ?'
a
Hempel: The only
areas that I see a concern with that would be on Lots, for instance Lots 1,
5 and 6 where
the grading essentially was within 10 feet of a...
Ledvina: Right.
Yeah, I can see that. ; I
Hempel: Potentially
that area would be left to grow natural after the grade is in.
Aanenson: And
we establish vegetation.
Ledvina: I guess
I don't want to see any, and I agree with the homeowner here, is people 1
34
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
mowing all the way to within 10 feet of the wetland area and if we can bump that back, that
would seem to make sense.
Aanenson: I think you can make... conservation easement from the wetland buffer. I think if
you ... just add on as far as screening... the trees closer to the home so I think we'd like maybe
' some time to evaluate that more closely and get your concerns.
Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Overall I feel that the developer has been fairly responsive to our
' comments and believe that the adjustments that have been made have benefitted the plat. I
think with a few more conditions, I think the concerns of the neighboring homeowners can be
addressed and it can be a good situation for both the developer and adjacent lot owners I
1 should say. One question I did have and I forgot to bring this up. For Outlot B, is there a
conservation easement along the north boundary of that lot?
Al -Jaff: At this point we did not...
Ledvina: Okay. Do we want to do anything there at this time or do we have to see this lot
back again if it's developed so we don't necessarily need that at this time?
Aanenson: I think you'd like to wait and see how Lake Lucy aligns.
Ledvina: Okay. That seems reasonable to me. That's the extent of my comments.
Scott: Thank you, Ladd.
Conrad: I have nothing new to add. I agree with most of Matt's comments.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: We've got two things here. We've got a rezoning. Okay, start with the rezoning.
I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning #94 -5 for property
zoned RR to RSF for Brendon Pond as shown on the plans dated August 30, 1994. Do we
need to modify that? No, that's it. August 30th, 1994 subject to the following conditions as
outlined in the staff report.
Conrad: I second.
' Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
35
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
of Rezoning #9 5 for property zoned RR to RSF for Brendon Pond as shown on the
plans dated August 30, 1994, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applic t shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of
approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The
development contract shall be recorded against the property.
2. The applicaij t shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #94 -10.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: Can I have another motion please.
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary
Plat for Subdivision #94 -10 for Brendon,Pond for 19 single family lots and 4 outlots with a
variance to the ;treet grade of 10% on Pondview Court as shown on the plans received
August 30, 1994, subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following modifications
and additions. Number 2 to add, this plan shall include a list of trees and their size. The
plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval. Does that get what we need there?
Okay. And tha relates to the tree replacement and reforestation plan. I guess with that I
would also like to add that the applicant:; shall review the need for screening along Lots 10 -12,
Block 1 as it relates to the existing single family home to the west.
Conrad: Can you change that to have staff review that? Versus the applicant.
Scott: Also perhaps in addition to the extend the tree preservation area which would take into
consideration 19, 11 and 12 to preserve... I don't want to make it too ... If we see that there's
something ther that we need to preserve and then we might not have to spend a lot of time
on it.
Ledvina: Yes. I I would, that condition I would have staff review the need for that screening.
Aanenson:
Ledvina: Yes.
wetland alterati
relates to the of
encroached in t
staff evaluate p
owner from Lo
the wetland.
Yes. Let's see. Condition number, add to condition number 18. That any
on be mitigated according to city ordinance and state laws. And that as it
ientation of Lake Lucy Road, however that ends up, and if there are wetlands
hat area. Adding condition 25. That the applicant evaluate, applicant and
Dtential concerns as it relates to potential run on for the adjacent property
:s 10 -13, Block 1. I guess that's essentially it.
7
36 1
li
' Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
IScott: Good. Is there a second?
INutting: Second.
' Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve staff recommendation with additional
conditions as so stated. Can I have a second please?
Nutting: It was.
Scott: Is that what that was. Not that we don't pay attention to everything you say. Let's
' vote on it.
Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
' of Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #94 -10 for Brendon Pond for 19 single family lots
and 4 outlots with a variance to the street grade of 10% on Pondview Court as shown
on the plans received August 30, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the
city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or
greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
' 2. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on
the site. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be
protected by a conservation easement. Tree conservation areas are shown on attachment
' #l. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of these easements. The
conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and
underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be
' removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation
easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. A total number of 185
trees will be required for the forestation and tree replacement on this site. Financial
guarantees acceptable to the city will be required to ensure compliance. This plan shall
include a list of all trees and size proposed to be removed. The plan shall be
submitted prior to final plat approval. Staff shall review the need for screening
along Lots 10 -12, Block 1 as it relates to the existing single family home to the west.
' 3. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to
grading.
4. Building Department conditions:
' 37
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 t
a. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of
foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final
plat approval. I
b. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance
of any building permits. I
5.
The applica�it
shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary security
to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
with final plat
conditions of approval.
6.
The applicant
shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
I
i.e. Watershed
District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of
Engineers,
Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their
�f
conditions
approval.
'
7.
The lowest
oor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall
be a minimum
of three feet above the 100 -year high water level. All storm water ponds
shall have s�de
slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more
than 3:1 slopes
thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes.
8.
The applica
n shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction
and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
'
9.
Access to the
individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from Lake
Lucy Road
with the exception of lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1.
'
10.
Fire Marshal
conditions:
t
a. A ten f�ot
clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs,
bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure
that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance
Sec. 9 -1.
b. Pending
review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable.
1
c. Radius
of cul -de -sacs shall be 45 feet, not 42 feet.
,
d. Fire by
1 m f feet art.
ants shat be located a maximum o 300 ee apart.
38
.' Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
1 11. Park and Recreation conditions:
a. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of Pondview Court extending north to
the school property shall be incorporated into the construction plans for Brenden Pond.
The applicant is to construct this sidewalk and convey any and all easements required
' by its alignment to the city.
' b. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and /or trail construction.
12. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user fee of $35,501
assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The water quantity and quality fees may or
may not be assessed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road improvement project
assessment methodology. The water quantity fees will be negotiated based on the
developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water
quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If
there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat.
13. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be
abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes.
' 14. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
' 15. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review.
1 16. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council
approval.
17. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction
begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Any wetland alteration be
' mitigated to city and state laws as it relates to the orientation of Lake Lucy Road.
39
23. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or ,
substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing
requirements and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property."
24. That thp applicant and staff evaluate potential concerns as it relates to potential
run on for the adjacent property owner from Lots 10 -13, Block 1. ,
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
40 1
i
Planning Commission
Meeting - September 7, 1994
'
18.
The
applicant
shall provide detailed predeveloped and post - developed storm water
calculations
for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and high water level
calculate
ns in existing basins /wetlands and individual storm sewer calculations
'
between
each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch
basins are
being utilized.
'
19.
The appropriate
drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat
for all u�ilities
and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width
shall be
minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access
for maintenance
of the ponding areas.
20.
Preliminary
and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City ordering
Improvement
Project No. 92 -12 and awarding a bid for the contract.
21.
Outlot A
shall be conveyed to the City for access to the Mancino parcel. A private
street shall
be designed and constructed by the applicant in accordance to the City's
private street
ordinance over Outlot A. This private street shall serve a maximum of 4
single family
homes. Utility service (sanitary sewer and water) shall also be extended
to the east
line of Outlot A.
22.
The applicant
shall dedicate to the city at no cost the future right -of -way for Lake
'
Lucy Road
through Outlot B.
23. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or ,
substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing
requirements and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property."
24. That thp applicant and staff evaluate potential concerns as it relates to potential
run on for the adjacent property owner from Lots 10 -13, Block 1. ,
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
40 1
COUNTY OF CAQVEQ
TO: Sharmin AI -Jaff, Planner II
' FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
SUBJ: Brenden Pond, Gestach and Paulson Properties
' Planning Case: 94 -10 SUB and 94 -5 REZ
1
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
600 EAST 4TH STREET, BOX 6
CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
::1
We have reviewed the information submitted by your memo dated July 20, 1994 for the
Brenden Pond development on TH 41. The proposed development will not impact the
1 County Road system. The development occurring as part of this proposal does not abut
the County Road right of way. We will not be submitting any comments at this time.
1
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal.
1
1
1
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on Recycled Paper
Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
(612) 361 -1010
FAX (612) 361 -1025
i
1
1
August 9, 1994
COUNTY OF CAQVEQ
TO: Sharmin AI -Jaff, Planner II
' FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
SUBJ: Brenden Pond, Gestach and Paulson Properties
' Planning Case: 94 -10 SUB and 94 -5 REZ
1
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
600 EAST 4TH STREET, BOX 6
CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
::1
We have reviewed the information submitted by your memo dated July 20, 1994 for the
Brenden Pond development on TH 41. The proposed development will not impact the
1 County Road system. The development occurring as part of this proposal does not abut
the County Road right of way. We will not be submitting any comments at this time.
1
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal.
1
1
1
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on Recycled Paper
Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste
�n STa OF
Ll �J �Q
DEPARTMENT
METRO WATERS - 1200
PHONE NO. 772 -710
August 8. 1994
OF NATURAL
WARNER ROAD, ST.
Ms. Sharmih Al -Jaff
Planning Dipartment
City of Ch nhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassenj MN 55317
mN
RESOURCES
PAUL, MN 55106
FILE NO.
RE: BRENDEN POND (GESTACH & PAULSON), UNNAMED WETLAND 10 -132W,
CITY QF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY (CITY 1.94 -10 SUB & 94 -5 REZ)
Dear Ms. All -Jaff:
We have reviewed the site plans dated July, 1994 (received July 22,
1994) for he above- referenced proposal (SW1 /4, Section 3, T116N-
R23W) and �ave the following comments to offer:
1. Public water wetland 10 -132W, is on the proposed site. Any
activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which
alters the course, current or cross - section of protected
waters or wetlands, is':under the jurisdiction of DNR and may
require a DNR protected waters permit. No official OHW has
been established for wetland 10 -132W. Please contact this
office if there is any question about whether proposed
activities will be within protected water wetland 10 -132W and
we ca make arrangements to estimate or officially determine,
if necessary, the OHW.
2. The city of Chanhassen's Surface Water Management Plan shows
an outlet for wetland 10 -132W (city basin LM -P1.3) that would
go un er Highway 41. Please note that a DNR Protected Waters
permit would be required for the outlet (and the city or
water�hed district should be the applicant).
3.
Also
Purga
the Z
insta
invol
Resou
It i
dire
trea
f eat
zote that this basin is currently part of the Riley -
:ory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, but would drain into
innehaha Creek Watershed if the proposed outlet is
.led. Therefore, a change in official watershed district
Lries may be necessary. The city should consult with the
red watershed districts and the Board of Water and Soil
-ces on this matter.
pears that the stormwater is proposed to be routed
:ly to wetland 10 -132W. Stormwater sedimentation/
tent ponds, or other appropriate stormwater treatment
-es, should be included in the plan. I understand that
t
0
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I
.1
Ms. Al -Jaff
August 8, 1994
Page 2
the city has classified this basin as an urban basin and is
considering requirement of primary /sediment treatment versus
nutrient treatment. If only sediment treatment is required,
' a pond /basin should still be used rather than sump catch
basins (or other similar facilities), which are ineffective
unless they receive a high level of maintenance.
' 4. There should be some type of dedicated easement, covenant or
deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland
areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are
' aware that the DNR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the City
of Chanhassen, the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed (or
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed) have jurisdiction over the
areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without
appropriate permits.
5. DNR public water wetland unnamed 10 -132W should be labelled as
' such in future plans or plats and the OHW, if available,
should be noted.
' 6. There may be wetlands on the site that are not under DNR
jurisdiction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be
consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for
activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these
' wetlands should be evaluated by the city in accordance with
the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991.
I 7. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed
developments:
1
a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken
during the construction period. The Minnesota
Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association
of Metropolitan and Soil and Water Conservation
Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be
followed.
b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000
gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR
appropriations permit is needed. You are advised that it
typically takes approximately 60 days to process the
permit application.
C. Construction activities which disturb five acres of land,
or more, are required to apply for a stormwater permit
from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott
Thompson @ 612/296- 7203).
Ms. Al -Jaff
August 8, 1994
Page 3
d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of
waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These
comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack
�hereof for a particular project.
Please con act me at 772 -7910 should you have questions.
Sincerely,
C'�-Y e
Ceil Straus
Area Hydroilogist
CCS /MM /cs
c: Riley--[Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer
Minnehaha Creek WSD, Ellen Sones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann
Carver? SWCD, Paul Neumann
IC L I
- 1
J
Ninnegasco-Fi.r.t.,
A Division of Arkla, Inc. s ; ��
��g4
August 1, 1994
Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: 94 -10 SUB and 94 -5 REZ
Brenden Pond
Gestach and Paulson Construction
Dear Ms. Al -Jaff:
' Enclosed are the prints for this project with the location of
Minnegasco's natural gas mains indicated in red. Individual
services are not shown. Natural gas service is available to this
development from the main shown. No addition work is anticipated
at this time unless requested by a developer /builder /owner.
The developer /builder should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco's
Residential Energy Services, 525 -7607 or 342 -5123, to make
application for natural gas service.
Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal.
Sincerely,
Richard J. 4Pin,P.E.
Senior Design Engineer
Engineering Services
612- 342 -5426
cc: Mary Palkovich
Terry Jencks
700 West Linden Avenue
P.O. Box 1165
Minneapolis, MN 55440 -1165
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER! DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Dane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 31 , 1994
SUBJ: U
Upon review of
Engelhardt Asso
WETLANDS
Preliminary Plat Review for Brenden Pond, File No. 94 -17
preliminary plat drawi
s, Inc. we offer the fol
According to the 1wetland delineation performed by W
on -site and they lare described as follows:"
"August, July 1994" and prepared by
.ents and recommendations:
two wetlands have been identified
West Basin is an ag /urban wedand located along the central portion of the western boundary of
the site. About half of the wetland extends off -site to the west; approximately 5.17 acres of
wetland is on si e. This wetland is DNR protected water, 10 -132W. An ordinary high water
mark has not been established for this wetland.
Southeast Basin s a large natural wetland located in the southeaster comer of the property. The
majority of the wetland is off- -site with only approximately 2.03 acres 1, on =site It, does not appear
that the wetland will be impacted as a result of construction of Lake Lucy Road, however, it is
very important 'hat type III erosion control be constructed around the wetland and well
maintained during construction. There will be:"_ me, fairly steep side slopes (3:1) adjacent to the
wetland. A pote tial erosion problem exists; therefore, the side slope should be revegetated as
soon as possible lafter site grading with erosio'i control blanket. This area will be constructed
under the City's improvement project and will be addressed on the construction plans.
Regulations
The City admini
wetland replaces
the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), however it does not appear that a
plan will be necessary for this project. Staff would like the following
I
J
11
Sharmin Al -Jaff
August 31, 1994
Page 2
' information as part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data
points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils.
In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip
monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10
to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an
ag /urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal
structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip.
' SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will
' serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the
stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow
future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In.
' general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding
and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan
uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow
' water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on
projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development
were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
' In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the
J g P
applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre- developed and post developed drainage areas
along with runoff calculations for pre - developed and post - developed conditions. Storm water
runoff from the site shall maintain the pre - developed conditions for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm
duration. Water quality ponds will not be required since this development will connect to the
City's construction project. the applicant will be assessed for storm drainage improvements in
lieu of SWNIP fees. Storm water discharge to the ag/urban wetland will be pretreated in a
' sedimentation pond to be constructed with the City's project. Detailed drainage plans and
calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. Staff believes
addifienM eateh basins Ail! be Fequir-ed along Pond View Cou . The grading plan shall also
reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre -
developed and post- developed conditions.
Water Ouality
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication
shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load
leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based
upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using
the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for
excavation of the pond. This fee is not applicable since the applicant will be assessed for the
Sharmin Al -Jaff
August 31, 1994
Page 3
Lake Lucy Roa
I storm drainage improvements. The appropriate drainage and utility easements
should be dedicated
on the final plat. ,
Water Ouantity
The SWMP has
established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city-
wide rate for the
installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP
trunk systems, culverts,
and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff ,
Single-
storage. Single -
amily residential developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre.
The proposed
would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of
$35,501 assuming
17.93 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the applicant's ,
surface water quantity
fees for construction of improvements in accordance with the SWMP
which include such
items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. An
analysis of the
�WMP fees and Lake Lucy Road assessments will be performed in conjunction
with the final plat
and construction plan and specification review process.
DRAINAGE
r
The applicant
preparation of
as petitioned the City to construct Lake Lucy Road. The City authorized
I easibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Trunk Highway '
41 and Galpin
Lulevard (County Road 117). On June 13, 1994, the City Council approved the
feasibility study
and authorized preparation of construction plans and specifications for Phase I
of the roadway
improvements. Phase I will include extending Lake Lucy Road from Trunk
Highway 41 to the
intersection of proposed Pond View Court. The project includes construction
of streets, sidewalk,
utilities and storm drainage improvements. This development is dependent
upon this project
in order to develop. Without these improvements the plat is premature.
Therefore, preliminary
and final plat approval should be contingent upon City Project No. 92 -12
being ordered and
bid awarded. This development will be subject to assessment as a result of '
the City's improvement
project.
The east side of the development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed which is under the '
jurisdiction of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. The west side of the
development is within the Lake Minnewashta Watershed which is under the jurisdiction of'the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. It appears the runoff from the site will drain into the ,
ag /urban wetland. The ag/urban wetland will then drain into the natural wetland. The natural
wetland drains to the east through a series of other wetlands before it eventually discharges into
Lake Lucy. Since the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek
Watershed boundaries are being altered both watershed districts and the Board of Water and Soil
Resources should be informed of the alterations proposed to the watershed boundaries.
The storm watet runoff from the front yard areas and street will be conveyed via storm sewers '
into a sediment basin that the City's improvement project will be constructing prior to discharging
into the ag /urba> 'wetland. A sediment basin will be designed with the City's project to hold back
sand and silt running off from the proposed development and the Lake Lucy roadway before it
!J
I---
L
1
I 7i
L-
1
fl
FJ
Lit-
Sharmin Al -Jaff
August 31, 1994
Page 4
enters the ag /urban wetland. Staff believes that a sediment trap is sufficient water quality
treatment in this situation; however, the inlet from the sediment trap to the ag /urban wetland
should be located well away from the outlet that discharges the ag/urban wetland into the natural
wetland. This will be modified on the City's construction plans.
GRADING
The site contains a significant grade variety of elevation changes and vegetation. There are steep
slopes in the northwesterly and southerly portion of the site. The proposed plans show extensive
grading to develop the site for house pads and streets. A development plan should be prepared
or included with the grading plan indicating the type of dwelling to be built on each lot. There
are some very steep slopes in the northwest corner of the development that will be re- graded
undef the pFepesed plan. Staff has met with the applicant and Mancino's in the field to determine
access and utility service location. Outlot'A' has been set aside for a private driveway to service
up to four home sites on the Mancino parcel lying west of the ravine. Utility service will also
be extended to the east end of Oudot A. Staff eeemmends that the trees be extendeits
aereess ..,h ieh ° „ be emended east through the Mancino „ .. °.... ;., the r; sum Staff reviewed
another potential location for this access road at the southwest corner of the property (Outlot B
A); however, the slopes leading into the Mancino property here are very steep and resulting road
grades would be greater than 10 percent. The extension of Oudot A PORd View GeHA appears
to be the best alternative since it would eliminate steep road grades and allow some natural
resource continuity between the wooded area on Mancino's property and the ravine which extends
from the wooded area south to the wetland.
neFth —end where -the -a begins. We believe this alignment will minimize impact to the
surrounding property and still provide a feasible access and utility service for the west side of
the Mancino parcel
According to the City's SWMP, a water quality pond is proposed adjacent to the natural wetland
(Oudot Q. The applicant will be required to dedicate a portion of Oudot C as a drainage and
utility easement.
EROSION CONTROL
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be
required around the natural wetland. The steep slopes may also require some form of terraced
erosion control fencing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval
in conjunction with final plat approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice
Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the
design process.
Sharmin Al -Jaff
August 31, 1994
Page S
UTILITIES
'
With the constriction of Lake Lucy Road , sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended to
serve this development. Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide the Mancino parcel
with street acce s and utility service. Whieheve- Opts n is ,.ppr-eved, Staff recommends that the
'
applicant be required to extend utilities along with access for future extension into the Mancino
parcel through Oudot A. The utility plans are relatively straightforward. Water service will mW
be extended � neeted from the a isfin,.' hne at theiF no fthe -ly p ..e..,., pine OF extension f em
,
Lake Lucy Road dependin e-read tension . Staff may require t e 1..... ing of this water-
line- A detailed analysis of the construction plans will be performed in conjunction with the final
plat submittal process. Fire hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. All utility
,
construction shall be in accordance to the; City's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the utilities and street
improvements vdll be required for submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and
specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. In conjunction with the
final platting process, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the
,
City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public
and
improvements conditions of final plat approval. The City will also be looldng to acquire
land for constmction of a well site on OAot C.
'
STREETS
Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road extending from Trunk Highway '
41. This segmCnt of roadway will be built under the City's Improvement Project No. 92 -12.
Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use ,
Plan. It is also part of the City's Municipal State -Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision
ordinance, direct driveway access onto !;a collector street should be restricted or controlled
whenever feasi e. Due to topographic constraints, staff believe there is no other feasible access '
point available to these three lots. Staff is comfortable with Lots 1, 2 and 3 having driveway
access onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff is !also recommending that development of Outlot BA, '
depending on tt a future alignment of Lake Lucy Road, may be required to utilize the interior
street (Pond View Court).
The extension of Lake Lucy Road east of jPond View Court has not been finalized. The City has ,
prepared a feasi I ility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road to Galpin Boulevard. There are
two other parce s of land that are directly'; impacted by the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road. ,
The first parcel (Ryan) is located just east of this development. The other parcel (Mancino) is
located northeast of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property owners several
options for access to the Mancino parcel. Staff has also met with the Ryans and discussed two '
potential alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact the development potential for the Ryan
parcel. There i5 no clear -cut alignment that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation.
The Ryans have submitted a preliminary plat for review. They have utilized the northerly
alignment of Lake Lucy Road through their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and
finds numeFeus 3roblems, from a design standpoint, Lake Lucy Road t#at will have to be revised,
I
Sharmin Al -7aff
August 31, 1994
Page 6
slightly to align with this development thus r- eduoing the potential number- of lots Staff has also
reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through the Ryan parcel which leaves the
westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very steep slopes. The resulting
' impact requires short, steep cul -de -sacs as well as tuck -under type homes versus walkouts
overlooking the wetlands, or delay development of the westerly 1/3 of the Ryan parcel until the
Mancino parcel develops in an effort to maintain the natural terrain. Access to the Mancino
' parcel through this development has been resolved. Since the applicant is not platting Oudot B,
this gives sufficient room for modifying Lake Lucy Road alignment to match with the Ryan
parcel.. Staff has put together- three options " we see feasible �Dr- development of these th
' . Staff still supports the southerly alignment of Lake
Lucy Road.
�I
f'.
I I
r
This alignment is eondueive te the Ryan's prelifninar-y pleA altheugh the Ryan's ffeliminar-y p!
This roadway alignment dees net fellow the City's feasibility study. This alignment VAII pu
Lake Luey Read furtheF north Fesulfing in steep slopes along the nei4h side of Lake Luey R
'
ft-or,
I'
.�
MW
lie
This alignment is eondueive te the Ryan's prelifninar-y pleA altheugh the Ryan's ffeliminar-y p!
This roadway alignment dees net fellow the City's feasibility study. This alignment VAII pu
Lake Luey Read furtheF north Fesulfing in steep slopes along the nei4h side of Lake Luey R
Sharmin Al -J
August 31, 1!
Page 7
-4ftehment 9-34
City's faasibilitystudy, the existing tepogr-aphir. featur-es by
.;,pro
follows
This option
the maintains
develepment the impetsachr the Ryan's until aeeess is -evided
Ontien C- Cons
This option -ie!,Ai,s
Cenelusion
has
ef 'effien of plat pr
P
-efiens that Option C should be implemented. This
Staff
and eeneluded
develop.
St b- N. way to develop !he westerly one thir-
Ryan) te
develepment.
e appr-epr-iate
Due believe thm this site sheuld be aeeessed fiem
the Ryan
te steep grades, we
developed,
the Maneines a street aeeess te the SOUth fOF development e
we would Feee
due
mend that pr-evide
he Similarly, has the Ryans to aersess to the-
this area te
steep gFades. staff Fequifed provide
jennifeF Way) due te the isolated of land (sur-munded by wedandy
Car-!sea par-ree4seuth
feel it
ef par-eel
in best inteFest City te make a develepment
We thAt
s the ef the and pr-epeFty eviners
tepegfaphy. in the Ryan needs te baek and
prepesal
itilizes the existing addition, plat go
and ster-m pending
The applicant is
Lucy Road through
construction of
will allow for su
immediately nortIh
the City's maximum
minimize gradi
street grade. Ddtailed
required as pa
eensio�d thro
Issues.
proposing to dedicate an 80 -foot wide right -of -way for the construction of Lake
the development. The plans also propose a 60 -foot wide right -of -way and
he City's standard roadway section for Pond View Court. This typical section
ffcient room for sidewalk if so desired to access Lake Lucy Road to the school
of the development. Street grades range from 0.5% to 10 %moo which is over
grade allowed. Staff believes this grade is wan -anted in an effort to
I and tree loss on the site. Staff is in support of granting a variance to the 10%
construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be
of the final plat submittal. Should Access to the Mancino parcel will be
gh Oudot A via a private driveway. the neFth end of Pen View GeuF. `he the
bee Ibuilt.
bar-fieade that this s4r-eet will be eK4ended in
should
future. Staff
a, Sipin and a ndieating
that if the;r-ead is eK4ended to the neftheast eemer- of the for-
alsE)
future
r-eeemmends plat
We to Read View Lane etheF than
eK4ensie
designate as GeuFt.
, 4he street name should Rne-d-ifiied either-
1
1
Sharmin Al -Jaff
August 31, 1994
Page 8
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user assessrnffit fee
of $35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The water quantity and quality
fees may or may not e&e-te be assessed dependent upon in n with the Lake
Lucy Road improvement project assessment methodology. The water quantity fees will
be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site.
SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by
City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to
final plat.
2. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during
construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer.
3. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned
in accordance with City and/or State codes.
4. A variance should be granted for the proposed 10% street grade on Pond View
Court.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
' necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and
compliance of the conditions of approval.
6. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
7. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management
' Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for
review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review.
' 8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
' each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
9. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
10. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and
will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
Sharmin Al -Jaffe
August 31, 1994
Page 9
11. The app scant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post - developed storm water
calculati;ns for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and high water level
calculations in existing basins /wetlands and individual storm sewer calculations between
each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are
being utilized.
12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Wat�rshed District, MWCC,' Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of
Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval.
13. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire
hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart.
14. The app 'cant shall submit to the': City soil boring information and include a drain tile
system i accordance with the construction plans.
15. The apps
all utiliti,
be a mii
maintena
16.
The low(
storm pi
17.
Prelimin,
Improves
18.
Outlot A.
drivewa
City's pi
water) s
19.
A deveh
the type
elevatioi
ktm/jms
,riate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for
and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall
num of 20 feet wide. I Consideration should also be given for access for
e of the ponding areas.
e*pesed floor or- epeaing elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and
ds shall sheeld be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 -year high water level.
y and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City ordering
lent Project No. 92 -12 and awarding a bid for the contract.
shall be conveyed to the City for access to the Mancino parcel. A private
shall be designed and constructed by the applicant in accordance to the
vate driveway ordinance over Outlot A. Utility service (sanitary sewer and
all also be extended to the east line of Outlot A.
)ment plan shall be prepared or included with the grading plan indicating
if dwelling proposed on each lot including the lowest floor and garage floor
c: Charles , olch, City Engineer
LJ
J
I�
IMEMORANDUM
CITY OF
cHANHassEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 7Q1 4k-
DATE: August 4, 1994
' SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Brenden Pond, File No. 94 -17
Upon review of the preliminary plat drawmts *eived "July 19, 1994" and prepared by
Engelhardt Associates, Inc. we offer the following comments and recommendations:
WETLANDS
' According to the wetland delineation performed by Wes`wood two wetlands have been identified
on -site and they are described as follows:
' West Basin is an ag /urban wetland focated along the centre ^portion of the western boundary of
the site. About half of the wetland extends off -site to thewest; approximately 5.17 acres of
wetland is on site. This wetland is DNR protected water, b -132W. An ordinary high water
mark has not been established for this wetland.
Southeast Banns a large, nat{uat weand, locatcl the southeaste co�l✓r of the, property. The
majority of the wetla=nd is off -site with only approximately 2.03 acres on-srte ,It -elves not appear
that the wetland will be impacted as a result of construction of Lake LACY lead, however, it is
very important that type III erosion" oontrol be constructed , 06biW the wetland and well
' maintained during construction. There will be omefair y steep side slopes (3:1) adjacent to the
wetland. A potential erosion problem exists, �,ffierOpfore, the side slope should be revegetated as
g
soon as possible after site grading with erosic���ontrol blanket. This area will be constructed
under the City's improvement project and will be addressed on the construction plans.
' Regulations
The City administers the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), however it does not appear that a
wetland replacement plan will be necessary for this project. Staff would like the following
' information as part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data
points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils.
t
Sharmin Al -Jaff
August 4, 1994
Page 2
In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip
monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10
to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an
ag /urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal
structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. '
The City has prepared a SWMP that is in; the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will
serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the
stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow ,
future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In
general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding
and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan ,
uses William Walker Jr. 's Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow
water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on
projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development
were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
Water Quality
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication
shall be equal tc the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load
leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based
upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using r
the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for
excavation of the pond. This fee is not applicable since the applicant will be assessed for the
Lake Lucy Roa4 storm drainage improvements. ,
Water Quantity ,
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city-
wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP
In conjunction
applicant to supply
with final platting and the, construction plan review process, staff will require the
drainage plans providing the pre - developed and post developed drainage areas
along with runoff
calculations for pre - developed and post - developed conditions. Storm water ,
runoff from the
site shall maintain the pre - developed conditions for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm
duration. Water
quality ponds will not be required since this development will connect to the
City's construction
project. the applicant will be assessed for storm drainage improvements in '
lieu of SWMP
fees. Storm water discharge to the ag /urban wetland will be pretreated in a
sedimentation pond
to be constructed with the City's project. Detailed drainage plans and
calculations indicating
drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. Staff believes
additional catch
basins will be required along Pond View Court. The grading plan shall also
reflect the normal
and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre -
developed and post-
developed conditions':
Water Quality
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication
shall be equal tc the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load
leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based
upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using r
the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for
excavation of the pond. This fee is not applicable since the applicant will be assessed for the
Lake Lucy Roa4 storm drainage improvements. ,
Water Quantity ,
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city-
wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP
Sharmin Al -Jaff
August 4, 1994
Page 3
1 trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff
storage. Single - family residential developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre.
The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of
$35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the applicant's
surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with the SWAP
which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. An
analysis of the SWAP fees will be performed in conjunction with the final plat and construction
plan and specification review process.
' DRAINAGE
The applicant has petitioned the City to construct Lake Lucy Road. The City authorized
' preparation of a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Trunk Highway
41 and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). On June 13, 1994, the City Council approved the
' feasibility study and authorized preparation of construction plans and specifications for Phase I
of the roadway improvements. Phase I will include extending Lake Lucy Road from Trunk
Highway 41 to the intersection of proposed Pond View Court. The project includes construction
of streets, sidewalk, utilities and storm drainage improvements. This development is dependent
upon this project in order to develop. Without these improvements the plat is premature.
Therefore, preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon City Project No. 92 -12
' being ordered and bid awarded. This development will be subject to assessment as a result of
the City's improvement project.
The east side of the development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed which is under the
jurisdiction of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. The west side of the
development is within the Lake N innewashta Watershed which is under the jurisdiction of the
' Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. It appears the runoff from the site will drain into the
ag /urban wetland. The ag /urban wetland will then drain into the natural wetland. The natural
wetland drains to the east through a series of other wetlands before it eventually discharges into
' Lake Lucy. Since the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek
Watershed boundaries are being altered both watershed districts and the Board of Water and Soil
Resources should be informed of the alterations proposed to the watershed boundaries.
' The storm water runoff from the front yard areas and street will be conveyed via storm sewers
into a sediment basin that the City's improvement project will be constructing prior to discharging
' into the ag /urban wetland. A sediment basin will be designed with the City's project to hold back
sand and silt running off from the proposed development and the Lake Lucy roadway before it
enters the ag /urban wetland. Staff believes that a sediment trap is sufficient water quality
treatment in this situation; however, the inlet from the sediment trap to the ag/urban wetland
should be located well away from the outlet that discharges the ag/urban wetland into the natural
wetland. This will be modified on the City's construction plans.
GRADING
Sharmin Al -Jafi
August 4, 1994
Page 4
The site contains
a significant grade variety of elevation changes and vegetation. There are steep
slopes in the northwesterly
and southerly portion of the site. The proposed plans show extensive ,
grading to develop
the site for house pads and streets. A development plan should be prepared
or included with
the grading plan indicating the type of dwelling to be built on each lot. There
are some very steep
slopes in the northwest corner of the development that will be re- graded t
under the proposed
plan. Staff recommends that the street be extended to provide future access
to the Mancino
property at the northeast boundary. This will provide access which can be
extended east through
the Mancino property in the future. Staff reviewed another potential
location for this
access road at the southwest corner of the property (Outlot A); however, the
slopes leading into
the Mancino property here are very steep and resulting road grades would be
greater than 10
percent. The extension of Pond View Court appears to be the best alternative ,
since it would eliminate
steep road grades and allow some natural resource continuity between
the wooded area
on Mancino's property and the ravine which extends from the wooded area south
to the wetland.
The road crossing the ravine would occur on the north end where the ravine ,
begins. We believe
this alignment will 'minimize impact to the surrounding property and still
provide a feasible access. ,
The applicant mill
need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management
Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be
required around
the natural wetland. The steep slopes may also require some form of terraced ,
erosion control
encing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval
in conjunction
with final plat approval.. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice
Handbook which
the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the ,
design process.
UTILITIES
'
With the constr�Zction
of Lake Lucy Road, sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended to
serve this development.
pment. Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide the Mancino parcel '
with street access
and utility service. Whichever option is approved, staff recommends that the
applicant be req
parcel. The utility
fired to extend utilities along with access for future extension into the Mancino
plans are relatively straightforward. Water service may be connected from
the existing line
at their northerly propery line or extension from Lake Lucy Road depending on
the road extension.
Staff may require the looping of this water line. A detailed analysis of the
construction plans
'
will be performed in conjunction with the final plat submittal process. Fire
hydrants shall be
placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. All utility construction shall be in
accordance to the
City's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
construction drawings
and specifications for the utilities and street improvements will be required
for submittal with
final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will be subject
to staff reviewed
City Council approval. In conjunction with the final platting process, the
City
applicant will by
required to enter into a development contract with the and provide the
77
LIB
1
1
17
LI
Sharmin Al -Jaff
August 4, 1994
Page 5
necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions
of final plat approval.
STREETS
Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road extending from Trunk Highway
41. This segment of roadway will be built under the City's Improvement Project No. 92 -12.
Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use
Plan. It is also part of the City's Municipal State -Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision
ordinance, direct driveway access onto a collector street should be restricted or controlled
whenever feasible. Due to topographic constraints, staff believe there is no other feasible access
point available to these three lots. Staff is comfortable with Lots 1, 2 and 3 having driveway
access onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff is also recommending that development of Outlot A,
depending on the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road, may be required to utilize the interior
street (Pond View Court).
The extension of Lake Lucy Road east of Pond View Court has not been finalized. The City has
prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road to Galpin Boulevard. There are
two other parcels of land that are directly impacted by the future alignment of Lake Lucy Road.
The first parcel (Ryan) is located just east of this development. The other parcel ( Mancino) is
located northeast of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property owners several
options for access to the Mancino parcel. Staff has also met with the Ryans and discussed two
potential alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact the development potential for the Ryan
parcel. There is no clear -cut alignment that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation.
The Ryans have submitted a preliminary plat for review. They have utilized the northerly
alignment of Lake Lucy Road through their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and
finds numerous problems from a design standpoint that will have to be revised, thus reducing the
potential number of lots. Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road
through the Ryan parcel which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop
due to very steep slopes. The resulting impact requires short, steep cul -de -sacs as well as tuck -
under type homes versus walkouts overlooking the wetlands. Staff has put together three options
that we see feasible for development of these three parcels ( Brenden Pond, Mancinos and Ryans).
Option A - Pros (See Attachment #1)
This alignment follows the City's feasibility study which minimizes grading and tree loss adjacent
to the wetlands through the Ryan parcel. This alignment also allows for two options to extend
the street access to the Mancino's parcel and further develop Outlot A, Brenden Pond from
interior street versus Lake Lucy Road. One access would be through the southerly portion of the
Gestach development along the ravine, although street grades in this alignment may be in excess
of 10% and involve additional tree loss and filling of the ravine. The other option to access
Mancinos could be to extend Pond View Court to the northeasterly corner of the Gestach plat for
future access. This access is much less severe in grade, involves some tree loss and filling of
t
Sharmin Al -Jaff
August 4, 1994
Page 6 '
a portion of the ravine and single - loaded!, lots. The northerly extension into Mancinos preserves
the natural feat res of the southwest portion of Mancinos. ,
U ton A - eons I
The Lake Lucy Road alignment is not conducive with the Ryan's proposed plat. This option
leaves the Ryan parcel to develop with cul -de -sacs north of Lake Lucy Road which will involve
steep grades and tuck -under type homes at the end of the cul -de -sacs. Another scenario would
be to delay development of these northerly cul -de -sacs until the Mancinos develop from the north.
Access to this area is more conducive from the north in order to situate homes at the top of the ,
ridge.
Option B - Prod (See Attachment 92)
This alignment is conducive to the Ryan's preliminary plat although the Ryan's preliminary plat
is anticipated to be revised due to inadequate intersection spacing along with wetland mitigation '
measures and storm ponding issues.
Option B - Cons
This roadway 4ignment does not follow the City's feasibility study. This alignment will push
Lake Lucy Road further north resulting in steep slopes along the north side of Lake Lucy Road ,
and mass grading which will significantly alter the existing terrain. This option will also limit
access to the Mancino parcel from the extension of Pond View Court.
(lnf;nn r - Pnni (Cps- Aftarhmant:HAI ,
This option follows the City's feasibility study, maintains the existing topographic features by
minimizing gra ing and provides development flexibility to the Mancino parcel
Option C - Cos '
This option delays development of the westerly portion of the Ryan's plat until access is provided
through Mancirio's property. 1
Conclusion I
Staff has revie ed these options and concluded that Option C should be implemented. This
leaves development flexibility to the Mancino parcel and allows both parcels (Brenden Pond and
Ryan) to develop. Staff believes it is an appropriate way to develop the westerly one -third of
the Ryan development. Due to steep grades, we believe that this site should be accessed from
the north to retEin its topographic features. If the Mancino parcel was the first to be developed, '
we would recommend that the Mancinos provide a street access to the south for development of
this area due to the steep grades. Similarly, staff has required the Ryans to provide access to the
Sharmin Al -Jaff
August 4, 1994
Page 7
Carlson parcel (south of Jennifer Way) due to the isolated parcel of land (surrounded by wetland).
' We feel that it is in the best interest of the City and property owners to make a development
proposal which utilizes the existing topography. In addition, the Ryan plat needs to go back and
be substantially reworked due to intersection spacing, wetland setbacks, wetland mitigation areas
and storm ponding issues.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 80 -foot wide right -of -way for the construction of Lake
' Lucy Road through the development. The plans also propose a 60 -foot wide right -of -way and
construction of the City's standard roadway section for Pond View Court. This typical section
will allow for sufficient room for sidewalk if so desired to access Lake Lucy Road to the school
' immediately north of the development. Street grades range from 0.5% to 7% which is the City's
maximum grade allowed. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street
improvements will be required as part of the final plat submittal. Should access to the Mancino
parcel be considered through the north end of Pond View Court, then the road should be extended
to the northeast boundary of the plat where a temporary cul -de -sac should be built with a sign
and a barricade indicating that this street will be extended in the future. Staff also recommends
that if the road is extended to the northeast corner of the plat for future extension, the street name
should be modified to either Pond View Lane other than designated as Court.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
' 1. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of
$35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. Water quality fees are to be assessed
in conjunction with the Lake Lucy Road improvement project. The water quantity fees
will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site.
SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by
City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to
1 final plat.
2. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during
construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer.
3. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned
in accordance with City and/or State codes.
4. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The
' minimum easement width should be 20 feet.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
' necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and
compliance of the conditions of approval.
i
Sharmin Al -7aff
August 4, 1994
Page 8 ,
6. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public; right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
7. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with '
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review '
and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review.
8.
All are '
disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
'
seed an
disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity
in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
,
9.
All utili
and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of
the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans ani
specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
10.
Wetland
buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance.
The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and
will charge
the applicant $20 per sign.
11.
The applicant
shall provide detailed predeveloped and post - developed storm water
,
calculations
for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and high water level
calculations
each ca4h
in existing basins /wetlands and individual storm sewer calculations between
basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are
being utilized.
12.
The applicant
shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed
District, MWCC Health Department, PCA, DNF, Army Corps of
Enginee
s and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval.
'
13.
Fire hydrants
shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants
shall placed
a maximum of 300 feet apart.
14.
The applicant
shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain file
system iii
accordance with the construction plans.
'
15. The app opriate 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 width shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas..
16. The low st exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of ,
3 feet above the 100 -year high water level.
Sharmin Al -7aff
August 4, 1994
Page 9
17. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The
requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a
schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
18. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer
trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design
requirements.
19. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City ordering
Improvement Project No. 92 -12 and awarding a bid for the contract.
20. Should street access to the Mancino parcel be required, the applicant shall provide the
right -of -way and street and utilities to the east boundary of the plat. A temporary cul -de-
sac shall be built with a sign on the barricades indicating that this street will be extended
in the future.
ktm
Attachments: 1. Option A.
2. Option B.
3. Option C.
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
g:\eng\diane \planning \brenden.pc
E
of
E
t
�i
V-
BLVD.
r �
F
ry *.
IM
Pla
Iya�
R�gr
a�
'r
27r�).2
i
11111{
i
f
`n �uoras
0
1
cE
RD. »
It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
W;
I
iy
"I
P-1
to
rl�R*111�110,
0
0 au
$4
`C
►rs� #
I R . H7Li
BLVD,
i Q
CO. RC
r
X
rn
I -mot
r
i
s
n MARWX
H
`0
i
% i
i
r
y
1
Z
r
t
117
{
ry�� A Lv
PC . 27i47.
►T . W.t7
{�
•l11
�p
E
E
d• i
rc .
i$3 0 /
m
0
0 au
$4
`C
►rs� #
I R . H7Li
BLVD,
i Q
CO. RC
r
X
rn
I -mot
r
i
s
n MARWX
H
`0
i
% i
i
r
y
1
Z
r
t
117
t
t
tMEMORANDUM
Ili
Pj
CITY OF
CHANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4o[ l<
DATE: 08/05/94
SUBJECT: 94 -10 SUB & 94 -5 REZ (Brenden Pond, Gestach & Paulson)
I was asked to review the plans for the proposed Brenden Pond Subdivision
stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; JUL 19, 1994; CHANHASSEN PLANNING
DEPT."
Analysis: 3�
Proposed lowest floor level elevations ",'stop of foundation elevations and
garage floor elevations are requited In order to insure adequate plan
review by the Public Safety and Er`1gineeing Departments.
The tosed ro ,,.
p p type of dwelling designatiQ;n. s are necessary to enable the
Inspections Division, Planning F?epartment and Engineering Department to
' perform a satisfactory plan p`,eview of the structure at the time of
building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE,
SEWO, TU, WO) must be used fO proposed dwelling types. These standard
designations lessen the chaftce for errors duT,�ng the plan review process.
I have included the 1993 memo which ;4-ists and explains these
designations.
Al
Fa 'SA,
In addition, a soils1 eport showing details an d locations of house pads
and verifying suitability of natural and fill.oil is required for plan
review
as qa'.. ,.�
1. Revise Grading °and :rDrainage Plan to indicate IoO tt floor level
elevation, top of founclatop elevatq Arad garage floor elevation.
This should be done prior to fi.naj "plat "approval.
2. Revise the Grading and Draina"ge,Plan to show standard designations
for dwellings. This should k .one prior to final plat approval.
3. Submit soils report to the ]**ections Division. This should be
done prior to issuance of any building permits.
enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo
t
tg: \safety \sak \memos \plan \brenden.sal
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER; DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: In ections, Plannin g & Engineering Staff
FROM: St ve A. Kirchman, Building Official )- cr.
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Duelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
FLO o: RLO Designates Pront Lookout of Rear;'ILootout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
approximately 8' below grade at its-,,deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
a>
R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with_ the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. ttis would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings.
SE Designates Split Fatly. This includes dwellings with ,the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SL�VO Designates Split Entry Walt Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at itS,deepest with the surrounding grade 4 ing down to lowest floor level.
TU Designates: Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
-dwelling,.,
Wo - Designates Walt Out . This includes dwellings with the basement floor,level approximately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the tear of the dwelling.
TU
SEwo
wo FLO
RLO
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1.
then passed to the
to proposed building ,
must be used on all
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 0 FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Sharmin, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littiin, Fire Marshal
DATE: July 22, 1994
SUBJ: Brendan Pond - Gestach and Paulson Construction
Planning Case 94 -10 Sub and 94 -5 REZ
I have reviewed the following single family,. project and have the following
requirements:
1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely I operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance Sec. 9 -1.
g:\safety\jnPbrenpond.ptr
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
David Ge tach - Leland Paulson David Gestach - Leland Paulson
APPLICANT: DBA: Gesi ach & Paulson rornstr. OWNER:DBA: Gestach & Paulson Constr.
ADDRESS: 200 N Chestnut Street ADDRESS: 200 N Chestnut Street
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 448 -3332 TELEPHONE:
1. Comprehensive
Plan Amendment
11. Vacation of ROW /Easements
2. Conditional Use
Permit
12. Variance
3. Grading /Excavation
Permit
13. Wetland Alteration Permit
4. Interim Use P
rmit
14. Zoning Appeal
5. Planned Unit
Development
15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6. X Rezoning
$500.00
7. Sign Permits
8. Sign Plan Review
. x Notification Signs $150-00
9. Site Plan Review
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
$100 CUP /SPRNACNARIWAP
$400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10. X Subdivision
—$15 x 21
$400.00
$315.00
TOTAL FEE $ 1 .365.00
i
A list of all prop) My owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with thi application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
81/2' X 11" Reduced ed copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple pplications are processed, ►Me appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. '
'" Escrow will be require for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME
Brendan Pond
LOCATION sw 1/4 Section 3, Township 116, Range 23
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attached
IPRESENT ZONING RR
REQUESTED ZONING RFS
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION LDR 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre.
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Same as present
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To germit a single fami l y suhdi Ti si mn
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should corder with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
'ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
' I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and th riginal document returned to City Hall Records.
7 �ee
Signature of Applicant Date
Signature of Fee Owner
Date
tApplication Received on Fee Paid �W- y Ob Receipt No. S 3
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
0
i
� I
That pert of the
Section 4, YowAx
desCrl 44 IS fel
EXHIBIT A
Parcel A
Nartheast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter O V
Rip' 113, Rang* 2314 CatVer countyt Minnesotia.
iows:
toamencing. at the northeast (corner of said ,Northeast
Quarter of the Southeast 4usrter; thtnce South. 01 degreel
03 minute% OS seconds East. Assueed bearing, alodg-the
east line of said Northeast''Ouarter of the Southeast
Quarter a distance of 524.1$ feet to the point of
b e 9 1 a n I n 9 of the land to be described; thence North 89
degrees 01 Ainutes 05 seconds Melt, a distinct of 311.21
feet to a `ine hereinafter referred to as line A; thence
southwesterIly along said Line A a distance of 896.18
feet to tha south line'of said Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter; thence easterly along said south line
to the souil east corner�of said Northeast Quarter of the,
• Southeast (Vartef, thence northerly along said east line
to the pot t of beginning. ,
Llne A is 4ficribed its follows:
Baginning a� a point on the south line of Said•Kortheast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 685.31 feet
westerly t go the southeast corner of said Northeast
Quarter of The southeast Quarter; thence northeasterly,
a distance Qf 2061.94 feet,'to a point on the east line
of said So Wtast quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant
581.25 fee northerly from the Southeast cornet of said
Southeast �4artvr of the Northeast Quarter and said line
there tear gating.
Subject to a 50 foot permanent a cement for street and utility
purpose% over &14 across the above descrjbed parcel. The .center
tine of said aasgAenz is descri0ed ss follows:
0
CoMe►enting at the southeast corner of the Northeast Qu3rttr
of the Southeast Quarter of!Section 4, Township 1166
Range 23. Carver County, Minnesota; thence north O1
degrees 03 eiinutes 05 seconds-West, assumed bearing,
along the cast line of said; Northeast Quarter of the '
Southeast Quarter a distance of 80.00 test to the point •.
of beginning of the center line to be,describ4d; thence
northwesterly a distance of 107.54 feet along a
nontangent al curve concaveito the northeast, having a
radius of 192.08 feet and & central angle of 21 degrees -
OS Minutes 45 seconds, the chord of said curve haying a
bearing of, North 45 degrees, 43 minutes 12 seconds west;
thence North 35 degrees 10 minutes 24 seconds West :.
tangent to last cvrve a distance of 122.20 feet; thence
northweste 11 a distance at' 237.96 ' feet along a tangential
curie concavt.to the south4est, having a radius of 381.13
feet and a central angle of 35 degrees 16 minutes 22
seconds: thence North 70 degrees 56 minutes 46 seconds ..
West a distance of 190.00 feet and said center line
there termin4ting. 1
I. . I
. I
P
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, AUGUST 17, 1994
at 7:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
' 690 Coulter Drive
Project: Brenden Pond
Developer: Gestach and Paulson
' Construction
Location: North of Hwy. 5 and east of
' Hwy. 41
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing the rezoning of 25.85 acres of property zoned RR, Rural
Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat to subdivide 25.85 acres into
1 21 single family lots and 3 outlots located in the SW 1/ of Section 3, T 116, R 23, north of Hwy.
5 and east of Hwy. 41, Brenden Pond, Gestach and Paulson Construction.
' What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you
about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project.
During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following
steps:
' 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
' 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937 -1900 ext. 120. If you
1 choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance
of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
INotice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 3, 1994.
the Park and Recreation Commission
1 will review this item on
Tuesday, August 9, 1994 at 7:30 p.m
Jerome & Linda Carlson
6950 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Daniel & Linda Murphy
6651 Hazeltine Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Sam and Nancy Mancino Edward & Mary Ryan
6620 Galpin Blvd. 6730 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Minnetonka School Dist. 276
261 School Avenue
Excelsior, MN 55331
Brenden Pond
August 17, 1994
Page 20
1 23.
i
1
1-1
of 4 single family homes. Utility service (sanitary sewer and water) shall also be
extended to the east line of Outlot A.
The applicant shall dedicate to the city at no cost the future right -of -way for Lake
Lucy Road through Outlot B.
24. The developer and /or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or
substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing
requirements and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Meme fFem Bill Weekinan, Gafyef Geonty daW August 9, 199 an showing location
of tree preservation easement.
2. .Planning Commission minutes dated
August 17, 1994.
3. . Memo from Dave Hempel and Diane
Desotelle dated August 31, 1994.
4. Meme fFefn Dave Hempel dated August 4, 1994. Staff report dated August 17, 1994.
5. Meme €fein Steve KiFel�man — dated August 5, 1994, and '-Dve4iag Poe
Designation imeme Revised
,. plans received August 30, 1994.
6. T�. eme Ma fk T ; t�� * ;u}�994.
7. lel;..,;.,afy pl.,t -dewy 19, 19947
e
zz
. . . . . . . . . .
w i11
m
z
z
z
O
2 is
0
z
z z K
it
I
u
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING OF 25.85 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL
TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO
SUBDIVIDE 25.85 ACRES INTO 21 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS
LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 3. T 116, R 23, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5
AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, BRENDEN POND, GESTACH AND PAULSON
CONSTRUCTION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dan Herbst
David Gestach
Lee Paulson
Charles Stinson
Sam & Nancy Mancino
Peter Davis
Steve Buresh
7640 Crimson Bay
8001 Acorn Lane
St. Bonifacius, MN
Deephaven
6620 Galpin Lake Road
6640 Galpin Lake Road
6651 Galpin Blvd.
Mancino: Planning Commissioners, I'd like to ask your approval, well just let you know that
I'm going to step down from the Planning Commission at this point for the next two
subdivisions that are coming in front of us, which is the Gestach- Paulson and the Ryan
subdivisions because my land abuts their land. I have no financial interest in it but I do care
about what happens so I'm going to remove myself, if that is fine with you. I talked to the
City Attorney and kind of gone over this with him and will take my place as a private citizen
and speak from that point of view.
Scott: Good, thank you. In view of similar things on other parts of city government, that is
definitely appreciated but does not surprise me. Thank you very much.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Harberts: What's the, excuse me. What's the comment by public safety on this issue. I'm
trying to determine traffic flow and then stacking up here. Has staff looked at that?
Hempel: One of the issues that's been brought up in the subdivision before us this evening
that is being addressed, that the intersection spacing was.
5
/-
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
Hempel: Yeah. We looked at the topographic maps and it was extremely steep and then I '
believe the Mancino's had hired an engineer's office to do that as well. The grades were
pretty significanI for this swath. The street would be 100 feet or so in that area. We felt
that that was not a feasible route for a city street to go.
Scott: How do . ou feel about that?
r
6 I
Harberts: Pretty
tight.
did It be
Hempel: On their
submittal, yes. We point that out. would sufficient, we would
revise the drawings
and get additional space.
'
Aanenson: I'd Ike
to make a couple of comments as far as the options. What happened with
this is we had the
Gestach - Paulson party who wanted to go forward with the plat ... Lake Lucy
extension. Having
done that, the Ryans put themselves in a position where they want to '
make sure the road
that they're designing so they were ready to develop. Well that left us
with the concern,
is well now Mancino's is the last big missing link here and ... we needed to
make sure that access
is provided for all properties. If the Mancino's to come in first we
would say okay,
you need to now provide access to Gestach- Paulson property and to the
Ryan's property
so all three parties have been very cooperative and we've spent a lot of time.
It's been very d'
icult. We've kind of wrapped each ... issue here as far as on this subdivision '
but they're all inter
related. So we tried to make sure that each subdivision provides access
to the adjoining
property. It is a complex issue and we're not sure that we've got all the
answers but we've
tried to give some options that we think may work. There's some steep
slopes on this property.
Significant grade changes. Some natural features. Wetlands.
Heavily wooded
areas that we had to preserve. So it is complex but on this, the Gestach-
Paulson property,
we feel that however we get access to the Mancino's, there is one outlot ,
that was platted
on the Shivley addition. ''We're not sure but ... would be to the north into the
Mancino's so w
're saying somewhere, either through the Ryan's subdivision or through the
Gestach - Paulson
subdivision, access need's to be given to the Mancino property. And that's
why Commissioner
Mancino removed herself from this because we're insisting that, whether
they develop or
if they would sell at some time in the future, somebody may want a public
street through there.
It may not be them but somehow we need to insure that there's access
to that property
and we're not land locking them so that's why this issues is before you with
this subdivision.
'
Scott: Just a question.
Dave, with the alignment that we see here having access to the
Mancino propery
from it looks like between Lots 20 and 21. Is that slope going to be, is it
going to be, is it
going to be about a 10% grade street or 15% or something like that?
Hempel: Yeah. We looked at the topographic maps and it was extremely steep and then I '
believe the Mancino's had hired an engineer's office to do that as well. The grades were
pretty significanI for this swath. The street would be 100 feet or so in that area. We felt
that that was not a feasible route for a city street to go.
Scott: How do . ou feel about that?
r
6 I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
Hempel: I would concur with that. I believe there are better alternatives to serve the
Mancino parcel than bisecting it in that specific location.
Scott: Would you, I mean just from looking at the maps that we are provided, does it appear,
at least if we're looking at access from a westerly or southwesterly portion, would you agree
' that a connection between Lots 15 and 16 would topographically would yield both the access
with a minimum amount of disturbance. I mean we don't, obviously we're trying to allow
three different land owners to develop responsibly here but just dealing with the access from
' the westerly side, does it appear that going between Lots 15 and 16 is one of the better
alternatives?
Hempel: It is a better alternative than the southerly one, definitely. There are a couple
drawbacks with that one as well. It would be a single loaded street. The school property is
directly to the north. If the Mancino's develop, they may not even elect to .use that option.
' They may loop the street back internally but at least we're providing an access with the
utilities for future extension if so desired.
' Scott: Is there enough distance inbetween, now we need a quarter of a mile inbetween access
to county road? What is the distance requirement?
Hempel: In this subdivision here we're looking at 300 foot intersection spacing. The quarter
mile refers to arterials like Trunk Highway 41.
Scott: Okay. So there wouldn't be really anything that would preclude an access point to the
Mancino property off of CR 117 that was somewhere in the middle of their, I know there's
' an existing driveway or something like that.
Aanenson: And that would be one access.- They would have direct access out onto Galpin.
What we're saying is, if that was their only access point, let's say.
Scott: Well yeah, you need.
' Aanenson: You would have a long dead end cul -de -sac and that's our ... there needs to be
another access point into the Ryan's piece which can ... or up through the extension of the cul-
tde -sac from the Gestach- Paulson property.
Scott: Okay, thank you.
Al -Jaff: We are recommendin g approval of this subdivision with conditions outlined in the
staff report. I have some minor changes to some. One ... where the applicant needs to shift
7
r
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
some property lies to give some... adequate frontage. We also apologize for not forwarding
the grading plan to you. If there are any questions regarding the grading, it's fairly simple '
and if there are y questions regarding the grading, we will answer them. With that we are
recommending proval of the plan with conditions outlined in the staff report.
Scott: Good, thank Y ou. Any comments, from commissioners? Hearing none, would the '
applicant or thei- representative wish to speak at this time? Yes sir, please state your name
and your addres please. ,
David Gestach: David Gestach ... we've been working with staff and the adjoining neighbors
and like they say, it's been a long process. The first plat was submitted back in '85. That '
was in 2 1/2 acre lots and then—so it's been a long process so we're appreciate your
approving the plan. It's basically the same layout as far as...but I guess that's all I have to
say. '
Scott: Good. Any questions for the applicant? Good, thank you very much.
willing to provide a public street to the '
David Gestach: And the other thing is, we g p p
adjoining property owners.
Scott: Okay. Good, thank you. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open the
public hearing? '
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: If anyon would wish to speak, please step forward. Give us your name and your
address and tells what's on your mind.
Steve Buresh: My name is Steve Buresh: I'm more directly interested in the next item but
this one does impact me somewhat since ',I do live on Galpin Blvd. I do have a few concerns
with having liv in this area since 1987 !in the Lake Lucy Highlands area. And in that the
concerns are with the extension and then ;with the two additions that are planning to go in
there. Currently we already, as someone who tried to get onto Highway 5 every morning, we ,
currently have some extreme traffic problems out there in that area and I think that the
Planning Commission should definitely take a look at the approvals of additions out there
with the current I status of Highway 5 and, the fact that it's only 2 lane out there. And then ,
also what, basicoly what impact this, all these homes going into this area are going to have.
Scott: So you're concerned about your access from CR 117? ,
e 1
i
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
' Steve Buresh: Well with the continuation of Lake Lucy Road there. I'm just about 4 houses
down from the intersection of Lake Lucy, the current Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Blvd.
The traffic that's going to end up being dumped onto Highway 5 to the south there and then
also currently with the traffic that's going through that area right now in the rush hour period.
So I just want to voice that we should take into consideration the current roads out in that
' area before we start expanding that at too large a rate.
Scott: Okay. Dave, do you want to talk about the signalization project this fall?
' Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The projection with the new elementary or middle school
being constructed at the southeast corner of Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd, there will be
construction and installation of a signalized intersection there to assist traffic in crossing
Highway 5. This project and Lake Lucy Road extension will actually probably assist in some
of the traffic. Right now you only have one access and that's going south with the extension
' of Lake Lucy Road through and provide a parallel street system to Highway 5, approximately
a 1 1/2 mile north of Highway 5 to give another option to access TH 5 as well. But we are
well aware of the traffic concerns at the intersection of Galpin and Trunk Highway 5. We're
' working on resolving that.
Scott: Okay, so that signal will be installed yet this fall?
' Hempel: Early 1995.
' Scott: Okay, good. Does that answer your question?
Steve Buresh: Yeah. That concludes my concerns.
Scott: Good, thank you sir. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing?
' Sam Mancino: Hi, I'm Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd...
Nancy Mancino: Mr. Chair, Nancy Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd.
Sam Mancino: First off we'd like to make it clear that we at this time have no intentions to
' develop. We are merely trying to do some long range planning. As the development around
us sets in, it becomes clear that we have to apply certain prudent ...how we deal with this
property and allow for future contingencies. But at this time we don't have any definite plans
but we have done some drawings and some planning to ... decision. In the process we've
talked to a lot of experts and engineers as well as staff... sketched this and we want to kind of
walk through some of the issues as we see them. As it regards, the first part of this area, the
9
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
Gestach- Paulson property to the west of us. Both this and as well the Ryan property but
basically in terms of the topography for the last many years, working farms has been mostly
clearing trees. a rolling topography remains but most of the trees have been cleared.
During that sam -,period of time in the 40 "s and 50's, our's was the old Slogan Tree Farm
and planted a to of specimen trees. The 'perimeter is pretty much lined by trees and within
the site itself there are a lot of very mature trees. The western half is almost completely
woods with a ra . e system that runs through it. It makes future development of it possible
but as we say so ewhat problematic. We have to deal with and sensitive to it. Our house is
located at about a gift point east and west, very close to the southern property line.
Scott: If you could angle that. Could you angle that straight at us so the camera can pick it
up from behind. There are cameras everywhere so be careful.
Sam Mancino: y the way, this is Charles Stinson who is an architect who will be helping
with the present lion and planning. There's a perimeter tree line that runs the entire east/west
portion of the southern property line. Many of you who drive Galpin Boulevard probably are
familiar with tht large stand of arborvitae trees that line the western side of Galpin Road.
There's a companion set of arborvitae through here. This entire section is woods and will
be ... through here, that will meander back into here. The terrain rises somewhat sharply here
to a high point. The section near our house is probably at 1,050 -1,060 feet and this property
falls off down i to the 960's I believe or 980's. It's about an 8 foot drop there so just to
give you an ove all sense of the terrain. Through here there are a lot of stands of Ponderosa
pines... As a cor sequence, most of the people who have advised us about looking at our
future developm nt potential, both developers, architects, and engineers, have really come
pretty much to tie same conclusion which is whatever is happening here, we should probably
consider that whatever development we do in our property will be somewhat different than
the surrounding evelopments. Both in terms of the lot sizes, which following the landforms
and the natural trees and vegetation...force themselves into a larger lot configuration than we
see being plattec around us. And so our long range thinking is that we will probably tend to
develop that as an eye per se. More self contained and for that purpose we probably don't
want to go thro gh ... adjoining properties. We've looked at a number of road options. We've
been in some di -,cussions with the Gestach - Paulson and Lee and have at one time looked at a
variation that su f had talked about us with which had us accessing a road system through
here, or a road stem through here to serve this property. And perhaps Charles, maybe you
can talk to us about some of the things that's happened as a result of that road system
Charles Stinson:
Eastwood Road
that property fro
understanding th
Okay. My name is Charles Stinson. I'm an architect and I live at 4733
i Minnetonka. I was approached by Nancy and Sam about taking a look at
i an architectural standpoint, from a land planning standpoint and with the
t none of us wanted to do a maximum density residential area and we
10
t
r
�I
L
1
CSI
I��
i
C
�L�
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
wanted to keep and save the integrity of the area. I mean it's, with all the development going
everywhere and with trees coming down and topography being ripped apart, we wanted to
save one of the last stands of just specimen trees. I mean there's huge ponderosa pine.
Across this area, I mean they're just gigantic. There's a big ravine and again there's 80 feet
of drop going from here to down in this area. A lot of, there's pathways. Just a tremendous
amount of trees that were planted 40 -50 years ago and they go all the way across the
property. This is totally dense. Kind of an unmolested nature in this area and they actually
extend across the property line. So as we looked at it, the first thing we wanted to think
about is, as we get back to the road, was just the idea of what can we do to preserve the
integrity of this whole area without destroying it. And with the buffers we're thinking, at the
beginning point is, creating a conservation zone that would occur on both our property and
the properties abutting that would be desirable for everybody. You know perhaps 30 feet on
each side or something but it would be far enough away that it wouldn't destroy the root
system and that's one of the problems of so many of our developments is we go in and we
say well, we're going to miss that tree with the road but by the time we do the grading, it
gets wider than we think and dirt is you know knocking the oxygen out of the roots or the
earth below the tree and we lose not only where we've just placed the trees but we've
damaged everything around it that we'll lose it within a couple years. So trying to preserve
their root system for everything around, for everybody in the neighborhood. So the idea, and
in looking at this and the other, we can look at a concept here of the road but to give you a
feeling of how they live there ... have lived here for the last 10 or 12 years, is there's a private
drive that comes in here. Drive through past the existing houses and reaches their house. In
going in there, so you're just cutting right through the trees. It's just beautiful and very
private. And when you arrive at the house, there's a giant meadow that's just going all the
way across here that just goes on forever. There's also a large meadow behind their house
and wildflower garden and then again the path system going through here is just, you really
should take a look at the property. So in looking at it, I can address this road alternative but
this is an example of what can happen I think just about anywhere where a large street comes
through the site. But an engineer took a look at this and showed us the topography so I've
just identified the area of the trees that certainly would be lost. And to see that, I mean it's a
major displacement of that forest. And even if a natural road came in the top, it would do
pretty much to the top what the same at the top did and all the ponderosas that seem to be
here and here would be gone. And it's right next to the school field and it's exposed to the
fence and all that. So it didn't seem like a real good alternative. So what we looked at.
Sam Mancino: One other point. In addition to just knocking out the trees, because of the
grades. We'd have to probably be either outside ... 10% grade in some cases which would
require, I think that requires cutting down of 10, 12, 14 feet. Being able to fill with 16 feet
up in places and being able to ... across the whole ravine system so it seemed a bit of a
violation to the topography.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
t
Charles Stinson:1
So in a very cartoon form, this is what we were thinking of. We were
thinking if it had
to, and we were trying to come up with stages that would happen so the ,
Mancino's could
live in their house with 'the same integrity that they do now and the site. So
we thought if, there
are several components here but the ravine is so big and this is so dense
and the topography
is dropping down so much this way and that way, that the service is '
dipping down h
re. The best way to service this side, instead of bringing a road all the way
through, would
having a two private drives off the west side of the property. One coming
up here and wo.11d
service this lot and this lot with each of them are good sized lots. I'm not '
sure of the exact
acreage they would be.
Sam Mancino:
Probably 3/4 of an acre. '
Charles Stinson:
Yeah. And another one coming up at the top. So it would just be a private
drive and utilities
so anything brought up would actually stop at the conservation line instead ,
of wrecking the
trees with these. If it doesn't happen and then at some point we would bring
them in. And then
the other access point would be in kind of a phase one but would be just
coming off this
existing road up here. That neighborhood and coming out with one cul -de- '
sac that would s
rvice here, here and here with a private drive going to that lot so we could
work the homes
built in a real ... solution into the existing topography. And then leaving this
all the same as it
exists in the middle and just bringing in a short road and a cul -de -sac here. '
Just servicing th
se lots and keeping and using this, what would be the future road, as a
private drive going
kind of a neutr
to these lots temporarily and that would leave this whole meadow area as
open zone and that way' we'd be leaving all the trees here, all the trees here. '
As much of this
as we possibly can all in this except for where the road can come in.
Mancino's would
continue to use their existing private drive coming in and enjoy this area.
At some point they
'
retire and move out to the country or something, they could put this road
all the way through.
Connect the two of,them and divide this up into lots and they would
have a thru street
here and a short cul -de,- -sac at this point. But from the lower portion, just '
bringing up utilises
because the topography is ... bring the utilities in here. Instead of having a
thru road going
through here, just have the utilities again stop at the bottom of the
conservation lmQy
and I'm getting ahead of myself on this next site but it's all so integrated '
bring it There is
that it's doing the
same thing here. That way we could up. a short open
space just by thi
-, arborvitaes here. Just on the back side of it that there isn't anything. So we
could bring it right
across there and if we need to go across, we could just kind of tunnel '
underneath the
ees as opposed to making the big hole there.
Sam Mancino:
s it relates to the future; possibility to hook up to Crestview. Some years ,
ago we were requested
to come to the city Planning and City Council meeting and we have a
note from February
7, 1990 which made a City Council recommendation that at such time
that this plat wai
filed, that it should be amended to provide the right -of -way for the '
12 '
i
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
' extension of Crestview Road ... feet which basically though it doesn't lock in the exact location
of the road, either positions it through here or possibly through here as long as there are some
' proper buildable lots. So I think that there is some notice in the record that that is a strong
preference from staff at one point that recommended that we hook up at that time.
' Nancy Mancino: Yes, that is true. That when the Shivley's went in and did, I think it was a
subdivision in here. That staff asked to make sure that we had access to the north. And the
particular road alignment, where that access is. Whether it's between here and there, it was
' not drawn out. It was not stated exactly where it is. That there is an outlot that was created
to have a roadway to go into the new property. But the exact location is between there and
there ... very comfortable that if it isn't right here, it could come over the cul -de -sac and also
' allow for our entering onto Galpin and there would be two accesses into the property so there
would not be a long cul -de -sac.
Sam Mancino: Just to reiterate my point. Though we've looked at the possibility of bringing
in a flow through road, we do believe that we, long term will serve the community's needs to
flow a road through into Crestview, which will create the circulation and the need. The other
thing is that in terms of violating and ripping and tearing the property, there's two discreet
private drives that would be built to city roadway standards would probably be ... virtually no
different than a road easement for full service roads. We don't feel that that's much of a
burden on the adjoining property owners and we have offered to help in landscaping the road.
The private drive going in there to be able to minimize the impact on that. And it also
facilitates a better sequence of any future development, whether it's ourselves or someone
else in the future because there are a number of options for sequencing in this area.
Nancy Mancino: No, I don't think there is. As just stated, we would recommend that under
the condition of the staff approval that number 28 be changed. Instead of having a street
access off the, the applicant shall provide a right -of -way and street and utilities to the east
' boundary of the plat and tying in a temporary cul -de -sac which will be signed on barricades
to indicate this street shall be extended in the future. That we do recommend that two
accesses, two private drives between Lots 15 and 16 and Lots 19 and 20 ... be approved. Also
' there be a 30 foot conservation easement on the perimeter of the property that abuts the
Gestach- Paulson property. ,
' Scott: And from looking at the staff report, you've discussed the private drive issue with the
Gestachs and they've.
Sam Mancino: We haven't. Unfortunately haven't been able to work out all of the details of
that. As they said, they are, as I understand, they are more than willing to bring a road up at
either of the locations. In some conversations we've had we have asked for two private
13
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
drives in lieu of a single road. At our latest discussions, I think that they would prefer a
single road, full sized...
Scott: Okay.
Nancy Mancino:� Any questions?
Sam Mancino: Any questions?
Scott: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir.
Lee Paulson: TV y name's Lee Paulson. I live in St. Bonifacius. Gestach - Paulson Construction.
We've already gone over this private driveway stuff. My partner's talked to staff and talked
to Mancino's an our experts tell us that it would ... our development by having these private
driveways runniig through our development. We don't want private driveways. We agree
with staff with Option A or B. We just don't want these private driveways in there. I don't
believe staff ready wants these driveways. The way I understand it, want the driveways
either and we'd a to see this moved on to, voted on and moved on to the next step. Thank
you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing?
Steve Buresh: I would like to comment.
Scott: Well whi don't we see if there's someone who would like to speak first. Or for the
first time. Yes sir.
Peter Davis: Yes, my name is Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Boulevard which is that
kind of odd shaped, ed, rectangle in the upper right corner. I just wanted to be recognized as an
interested party. I haven't been involved] with the other discussions and just to save my
remarks for item 3.
Scott: Okay.
make your cc
Steve Buresh: l
pretty much go
that is the area 1
is 2 1/2 acres ar
that are being pi
you. Anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Sir, if you can
extremely brief then.
Jow that it's been outlined here and made a little bit clearer, since this does
Tong with the concerns that I have for the next item on the agenda too and
hat adjoins Galpin Boulevard there. This whole area along Galpin Boulevard
d larger lots and I think that, I don't know exactly what the size of the lots
-oposed for this section, for that small pan handle section there that runs up to
t
n
14 1
IPlanning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
' Galpin Boulevard but I would strongly recommend that those lots be no smaller than an acre
and a half in order to fit in with the aesthetics of the area. This area is also very, there's very
' much wildlife in the area. I've got deer that go across my property all the time. That's one
of the reasons that I moved out there. I was raised on a farm so I like the open spaces and
basically I feel that that probably is the reason a lot of people are out there with the large
' sized lots. So I guess I'd ask the Planning Commission to monitor what size those lots should
be in the panhandle section there of that development to make sure that those are, would fit
in with the area.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing
none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
' motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Ron.
' Nutting: I guess I haven't, perhaps I...what is staff's reaction to the private drive issue?
Hempel: Maybe I can address first from a utility standpoint. Depending on the length of a
private driveway, it's typically 200 feet is probably maximum for the sewer and water
extension for a single service. The ... we looked at servicing additional lots and properties and
' trying to get a full sewer line or a water line in there... The other issue is basically ... for a
single lot or two lots for a private driveway that responsibility is with that homeowner to
maintain that line. Whereby if it's a city street, it's obviously maintained by the city and so
forth. With the roadway extension to the northeast corner of the property, it leaves the option
for the Mancino's to either explore a full service street through there or explore stubbing off a
private driveway to serve up to 4 lots off of that cul -de -sac. There is significant elevation
change from the north end of the property to the south end of the property where it may be
somewhat difficult to extend the private driveway down to service that area where the
southerly private driveway the Mancino's are requesting. That end there ... will be served
internally through a private driveway through the Mancino's but again there's some steep
slopes and ravines and the private driveway would have to meander in order to do that. The
private driveway would have less environmental effects, less trees, less grading, to do that but
the ... so I think staff's position is that we're obligated to look at providing adjacent properties
street and utility service and I believe that's what we're doing in this circumstance. Without
' a full fledged development proposal before us from the Mancino's, we really, there's a lot of
options in developing the property. The Mancino's are requesting large lots. That's fine.
That's great here. It would be nicely preserved with that. There's also potential that the
Mancino's would sell the property at some future date to another developer and we would
15
t
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
have potentially a 15,000 square foot lot subdivision. So it's critical from a street and utility
aspect that it provide the infrastructure and street right -of -way to service that for a full I
fledged subdivision.
Nutting: Did I hear correctly, did the applicant prefer Option A or B and not C?
i
David Gestach: I Yes.
Nutting: ... Option C.
Aanenson: Thai was before ... we asked Mancino's to explore whether or not, there was a
portion of this plat that is on the Gestach'- Paulson that's called Outlot A. This portion isn't
being platted right now. That's a future development... Mancino's looked at going out
through there and we asked them to see...
Nutting: I thi there are a number of issues here. I think I'm going to defer maybe some of
those to the oth ,r commissioners.
Scott: Okay,
Harberts: I guess just from my perspective, I'm certainly torn with regard to the opportunity
to develop the h nd on both parties in the, way that they want to. When I go back or revisit
our other plans 1 vith regard to how important it is to the community with regards to it's
natural resources, and the uniqueness that exists on the Mancino property. I guess I'm not
quite sure. I thilc there's a lot of, I think the commission should maybe have a discussion
with regard to some me of those values that we place on our natural resources and see if this
might be one of those projects that we might want to have some kind of special consideration
because of what we're dealing with. The development itself with regard to the applicant, I
guess I'm okay with it in broad concept and I guess my concern lies more with that overall
picture, especially when we're dealing with some of those special resources. And I'm just,
I'm undecided. 1I really am.
Scott: So you
Harberts: Well
we have a reall;
with our other c
you know, I me
answers but we
applicant and tt
more time to consider? More time to think about it or.
rune is, I think maybe it is a matter of more time to think about it because
unique feature here and,when you look at some of the work we've done
;velopments, I think it deserves a little extra special consideration here. And
n Kate kind of characterized it well when she said we don't have all the
•e trying. Maybe at this point that's all we can do but it sounds like both the
Mancino's are trying to work something out. I guess personally I'd like to
I-
J,
�I
J
16 1
II
u
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
see this resolved for all parties, including the city. If we're locking ourselves in by some
type of approval on it tonight. I'd rather then table it or like I said, see it resolved. If we're
in fear of locking ourselves into something if approval is given tonight.
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Harberts: Did you find your page?
Conrad: I found my page, yeah. I like the staff report. I think they covered most
everything. It seems like a good staff report. I like one of the additions the Mancino's made
about the tree easement. I think that's important. I think what everybody is talking about is
sort of unclear in my mind right now. I'm not really sure. Road alignment for Lake Lucy I
think should be as per the original. I don't like Alternative B for Lake Lucy. I like the way
it was originally specked and I think that's where it should be. In terms of access to the
Mancino property, I really appreciate what they're trying to do. It's a little bit, yeah it's
funny you look at it, it's not based on what we typically do here in our bigger lot
subdivisions but what they're trying to do is what we endorse. But to a degree it seems a
little bit, it's hard to totally grasp what they're trying to do. I'm not sure I understand it yet.
I certainly don't mind an access to the north off of the proposed Brenden Pond cul-de -sac
going into their property. I'd reduce the number of lots on the plat that I'm currently, on the
subdivision that I'm seeing. I think if a road were to swing to the north off of that cul -de -sac,
I'd really, I think I'd be eliminating a lot there. And I also, I think there's yeah. I'd be
eliminating a lot up there and swinging at least a road or a cul -de -sac into the Mancino
property. I'm not sure how to deal with what they're requesting for the private drive to the
southwest of their parcel. Bottom line. Like the staff report. Like the tree easement. Road
access to Mancino is, I'm up in the air on that. I guess I do want an access on the northwest
corner. I'm not sure if it's a private driveway or if it's a connection to that cul-de -sac. If
that cul -de -sac literally dead ends into the Mancino property. If it dead ends into it, I'd keep
a lot, Lot 15. I want to have a full lot there so that would back up to the school. I don't
really know what I'm talking about because I haven't walked the property and I know Matt
has so again I guess I'm going to, maybe Matt can persuade us a little bit because I know
he's been out there and maybe he has a better feel for it.
Scott: Okay, Matt. Thanks.
Ledvina: Well the issues that are associated with the plat are real thorny ones and the
problem that I see the Mancino's face in terms of their development is that the west part of
their property is isolated by a ravine and they feel the need to maintain that landform and also
the trees that are associated with that. Because if they go blowing roads through there, I
mean they're going to wipe out a tremendous amount of really beautiful area and.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
Scott: Can I stop you for just a second? How would this fit in with our bluff ordinance?
That ravine. Is that considered a bluff? '
Aanenson: I don't believe it would be, no.
Ledvina: I don't think it would, no.
Aanenson: Them
is a ravine that topographically. I mean we looked at putting a culvert in t
there and yes, it
does pose a significant... but maybe not.
Scott: Okay. I just
thought maybe with that ordinance. '
Ledvina: I don't
think that comes into play but in terms of the access. I would generally
agree with Ladd
that the northern access be provided. I don't know about the access towards
the southeast co
er of the Mancino parcel. I don't know how that would work. There's
still, according to
the grading plan that the applicant has proposed, there'd be some, it would
really run havoc
with their grading plan because they do have some steep slopes right in that '
corridor. I don'
know. It would almost seem that although the property lines have served to
kind of define
�e vegetation for landform to the western part of the Mancino property is
really with this subdivision
or with this parcel. And so it's always hard when the lines get ,
drawn on the rm
ps and I think that's the exact same thing we're going to see with the other
parcel to the eas{
and in relation to Mancino's south line there too. Although there's, the
trees have been
ome up because of the amount of time. Still it's, you're dealing with kind '
of a related land
area in terms of the slopes, etc. Okay. Having said that, I would feel that
there should be
a way of running that northern street to the property line and extending some
kind of private drive
to the south. I don't know. I think that possibly the south private drive ,
could be reviewcd
to see if that could be eliminated. I didn't have an opportunity to review
the grading plan
before this evening and I guess I do have some concerns immediately as I '
look at this gra
g plan. I think the, first of all I think that a conservation easement of 30
feet along the property
boundary abutting''! Mancino's represents an excellent idea in trying to
preserve those trees
but you, the grading plan as indicated this evening grades right to the '
property line wide
some severe slopes so I don't know how off the top of my head, I don't
know how to remedy
that or reconcile the situation with the conservation easement and the
grading as shown.
Obviously if they're going to grade right to the property line, that would ,
actually affect some
of the trees that actually are on the Mancino property so that essentially
is unacceptable.
In the other portions of the subdivision I see that the developer is relatively
conscientious of
the trees that are bordering the wetland on the west part of the parcel and '
then even in the
south. They've done a pretty good job of staying away from the wetland
area so it's esser
tially that difficult area near the southeast or southwest comer of the
Mancino's that I
think has to be reworked and I don't know if you change the grades here, I ,
18 '
i
t
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
don't know how that would change the street grades. Or what can be done there. If
necessary, perhaps retaining walls represent an option. I don't know. The other thing that we
normally have with these plats before we make decisions relates to the tree conservation and
we generally have a tree inventory associated with these developments and although I can, I
generally have the feeling that the trees along the western part of the development, adjacent
to the wetland, I have a feeling that the grading doesn't go into those trees. I don't really
know that. And again, along the east boundary I have concerns there too. There also is quite
a bit of grading in Outlot A that doesn't appear to be necessary. And again, I don't know
what trees are down in that area and how that's going to affect what could be done there in
the future so I think that, I don't know, can they grade on Oudot A? If this is all platted
together.
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. So that would be something that I'd like to see also. Yeah, it appears
they're grading quite a bit there. Well at any rate, I didn't have very much time to study that
plan. Let's see. I guess as far as the street layout, it seems to be utilizing the area fairly
well. I don't have a problem with that. Just for looking at some of the conditions of the
staff report, there's some duplications in here I think. Number 8 is repeated as number 14.
And then 25, 26, 19 is also repeated. Let's see. As it relates to number 9. Dave, I had a
question on condition number 9. Talking about Lake Lucy Road. Would we also want to
identify that those lots that are platted with, or that are developed with Oudot A shall be
limited to interior streets or I guess do we have to define that at this time.
Hempel: I don't believe we do. The other problem we have here is if Lake Lucy Road
alignment does get shifted northerly, there is a potential lot site or two on the south side
which may be appropriate so I guess at this stage we would have another chance at Outlot A.
That would have to be platted and brought back before you to address that issue.
Ledvina: Okay. So we would see Outlot A as a preliminary plat before us again, okay.
Hempel: That's correct.
Ledvina: Okay. I don't know what else I need to comment on here. I guess my overall
feeling is that I'm a little uncomfortable. I am uncomfortable with the situation with the tree
inventory. I would like to see the developer and the Mancino's try to work a little bit more
on the access scenario because it appears that they're worlds apart. The developer does not
want the private driveway and it appears that that's the preferred technique for development
for the Mancino's and I don't know that we can get between that process and try to resolve
that here tonight. And it's important because it really will affect how that area associated
19
Planning
with the ravine
associated tree
Scott: Dave I
the official alig
between West
clearance inbet
comes right up
talking about a
With the chang
property? It lc
many feet or m
going to lose,
Meeting - August 17, 1994
developed and whether there's extensive grading in there or not and
so I think we could see a little more work on this one.
st, I have a question. Just a question. I noticed that the official, it looks like
nent for Lake Lucy Road shows the road, and I'm talking about the area
tptist Church and the Carlson property. It appears that there's quite a bit of
°en the property to the south. When I look at the applicants drawing, it
the property line. My question is, what kind of an impact, since we're
oining properties, we really have not spoken about the Carlson property.
in the alignment, what sort of impact is that going to have on the Carlson
acs like the road, the applicant has shifted the road and I can't tell you how
at it is. I mean it's obvious if the road goes straight through there, they're
:)bably lose 2 lots.
Hempel: I believe that roadway alignment for Lake Lucy Road has been established as a part
of the feasibility study the city has conducted.
Scott: On the a plicant's plan? Okay.
Hempel: That's correct. My understanding.
Ledvina: It loops a little different.
Scott: Well it's a lot different. I mean I'm looking at this.
Ledvina: Yeah. I The section just east of iHighway 41. In terms of the feasibility study and
what the applicaInt is.
Scott: Yeah I di)n't know, is this an official map here of the proposed Lake Lucy alignment?
This is, okay. NL ell when I compare this to the alignment to the east, or the west side of the
applicant's development, it touches the property line on the south side. So I'm trying to
figure out if thin is official, it's not the same as what the applicant has on their property.
Hempel: I belie
extending out to
south. There is
was one option.
Scott: Swing it
ve in the feasibility study they showed 2 or 3 different alignments for
the Westside Baptist Church directly affected the Carlson property to the
a degraded wetland on that southwest corner of the Baptist Church site. That
I think... elected to align!.
up, yeah.
r
t
20 1
L
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
Hempel: ...rejuvenate or restore that wetland...
Scott: If you have a preliminary plat map you can, if you happen to have that, you can see
how there's a difference between the road alignments and my question is, where is it going to
be?
Aanenson: I think the simple answer to that is, Mr. Engelhardt, Bill Engelhardt designed
Lake Lucy project and he's also the project engineer for the Gestach - Paulson piece so we're
confident that he matched the alignments. That would be our qualification on that and Mr.
Carlson, as Dave indicated, is aware of this alignment that was approved by the City Council
as part of the feasibility study. So they should match...
Scott: Okay. Well I just was concerned because I saw some differences that were visible in
these two.
Aanenson: ...again, we put this in for your edification...
Scott: Okay, that's fine. I don't have any other comments. Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I would move that we table preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -10 for Brenden
Pond.
Scott: Is there a second?
Harberts: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table this item. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -10 for Brenden Pond. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. (Nancy Mancino did not participate in voting on this item.)
Scott: So we'll be seeing this, what on the 7th?
Aanenson: If you give the staff direction?
Scott: Okay, pretty easy. Matt is going to need the time and the rest of us are going to need
the time to review the grading plan. We need a tree inventory.
Aanenson: We have a tree inventory that was done.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
Scott: I mean a (graphic representation of where they are. I mean we went through this with
Lake Susan Hill 9th Addition. We had a listing of all the trees but we had no idea where
they were. Som�thing like that where we can see the locations and then also staff's best
guess of the trees that are going to be removed due to streets, utilities and pads. Building
pads. What did � miss?
Harberts: I'd like a little further work, consideration with regard to the environmental
resources here. With regard to full road versus perhaps that private drive concept and
recognize that it's probably not the usual way that the city likes to conduct business but again
I guess I'm just pointing out that I feel we have a unique situation here with regards to the
environment and maybe just revisit it. Maybe the applicant, the Mancino's and city staff can
sit down and maybe there's a resolution. ! It sounds like you're close. See if there's some
alternative that i palatable for everyone. But I personally think there's some environmental
issues here that a should be sensitive to: Thank you.
Ledvina: Mr. Ciairman, also along that, the east property boundary and dealing with the
grading in relation to the conservation easement. I think that has to be addressed somehow.
And how that af'ects the grading for the entire parcel I don't know.
Scott: Okay.
Conrad: Just as � point of clarification. I know we can serve the two lots the Mancino's want
to serve on the northwest with an extended cul -de -sac into their property. Dead ending into
their property. I know we can. Well I'd like to know if that's possible. Same street
standards as not a drive but the same street standards as we're using on the Brenden Pond
roadway and them the question again is, how do we service the, can we service the two lots to
the southwest d the Mancino property. ! Is there a feasible way of doing that and is that
besides the priv4te drive that was recommended.
Scott: Okay. Does that help?
Aanenson: Y
Scott: Well P
Nutting: Part c
which doesn't
process and wl
applicant and tl
decision. That
thank you. I'm sure we've got everything.
glad you asked. We need that sometimes.
the hypothetical here is you're talking about a plat for the Mancino property
ist and may not ever exist and I think, I sense in thinking through this
where staff is coming at this from is you know we may never get the
Mancino's to agree you, know sitting down so then we're left with making a
ecision either takes away a lot from the applicant or impacts the potential
t
22 1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
development which the Mancino's may or may not do. As we say, they could sell the land.
Someone else could come in and the northerly entrance may not be a significant issue. So
what I struggle with in this whole thing is, we've got the applicant before us. We have to
make the decision on how we're going to impact that on the basis of what might be impacted
in the adjacent development. I'm not sure where we, you know the dividing line in terms of,
I guess we're playing a little bit of, we're developing the Mancino property here with the
street proposal that we're making.
Harberts: But I think what we're also doing is.
Nutting: Or we're moving towards that.
Harberts: And I'm not disagreeing with you Ron.
Nutting: I'm not on one side or the other. I'm throwing out the position here and I think we
need to be a little careful as we, or it's very definitely it's a piece of property with a
resources that for all of the ... this is the type of thing we want to be careful about and make
sure that we preserve what we can from a development standpoint but I struggle with what
we do with assuming they can't come to some agreement down the road as to accessing
private drives or if staff doesn't feel there's any room to give on the private drive issue
versus Option C that they're proposing. What direction we turn.
Harberts: And I would just add or comment or take it from there on that perhaps what we're
facing is perhaps a situation in which in the true sense of planning, after all the numbers are
ran and all of this, it's like what does my gut tell me because this is really what we're doing
is guiding land use. I think that's the real, one of the real elements here that we have to deal
with. And there's nothing wrong with that ...but that's where my frustration or going back
and revealing all of the things that we've done with other developments. The Lake Susan.
The tree inventory. The conservation. All of those things. To me it looks like we have all
of those elements here. Wait a minute. Maybe we need to just stop and revisit that.
Understand what we're doing. Because of this site we don't have, I don't know if there's a
whole of other sites like this but it's just a matter of taking a little extra time. Understanding
what we're doing.
Nutting: I agree.
Scott: Good. Thank you for your comments. Thank you all for coming.