8. Woodridge Heights Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Wetland Alteration PermitQ
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: August 17, 1994
September 7, 1994
CC DATE: September 26, 1994
CASE # 94 -7 SUB, 94 -3 REZ,
94 -3 WAP
' U
�a
la
1
1
1
1
W
to
1
1
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 37.92 acres of property from Rural Residential, RR, to Single
Family Residential, RSF, preliminary plat approval to subdivide 37.92 acres
into 47 single - family lots, 2 outlot and 7 acres of right -of -way, and a wetland
alteration permit to fill and dredge wetlands located on site.
LOCATION: West side of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) at the intersection of Lake
Lucy Road - a portion of the SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 116 North, Range
23 West.
APPLICANT: Ed and Mary Ryan Charles W. Plowe Consulting Engineer
6730 Galpin Boulevard 9180 Lexington Avenue NE
Excelsior, MN 55331 Circle Pines, MN 55014
(612) 943 -1410
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
RR, Rural Residential
37.92 Acres
gross: 1.24 units per acre net: 1.83 units per acre
N - RR, single- family homes
S - RR, single - family home
E - RR, Galpin Blvd. and single- family homes
W - RR, vacant
Not available. Pending Lake Lucy Road extension approval.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is partially cultivated for hay. There are severe slopes
throughout the site with elevation changes from 1046 feet to 980 feet, a natural wetland in the
southwest corner of the development and two ag/urban wetlands along the eastern edge of the
development. There are concentrations of trees to the north and east of the natural wetland, within
the wetland, along the west and north boundary of the site, and around the existing homestead. The
Lake Lucy Road extension is proposed through the site.
ial -
- 1.2 - 4.0 units
[7
Shamrock Ridge '
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9 /21/94 '
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY '
The applicant is requesting the rezoning of 37.92 acres of property from RR, Rural
Residential, to RI F, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat approval to subdivide 37.92
acres into 47 single-family lots, 2 outlots and 7 acres of right -of -way, and a wetland alteration
permit to dredge and fill wetlands located on site. Rezoning of the property to RSF is
consistent with ffie 2000 Land Use Plan designation of the property as Residential - Low '
Density.
The Ryans contacted the city about the prospect of developing their property when the City '
Council was determining the location of Lake Lucy Road extension. They indicated to staff
that they had no immediate plan to develop, but wanted to ensure that the location of Lake
Lucy Road thro gh their property works the best for development of their property. Because '
the city does not have a conceptual approval process for a subdivision, they decided to gain
preliminary plat approval from the city. Since beginning the process, the applicants have
revised their int rtions, stating that they will develop the property in the immediate future.
This property has some significant issues involved in its development including the Lake '
Lucy Road exte ision alignment, severe slopes, grading and drainage concerns, wetlands, tree
preservation, and the interrelationship of this plat with the future development of surrounding
lands. Staff believes that the subdivision, as proposed, is inconsistent with the existing land '
form. The steep slopes on the western half of the development make the development of this
area problematic at best based on the development proposal due to the severe slopes. From a
land use and site design standpoint, this portion of the property would be better accessed from '
the north, eliminating the need for excessive grading of the site. The proposed alignment for
Lake Lucy Road does not correspond to staff's preferred alignment adjacent to the wetland
located in the southwest corner of the site. '
Meanwhile, Geaach and Paulson have proposed a subdivision (Brenden Pond) to the west of
the Ryans. The Mancinos, who own the! 'property to the north, are also concerned about the ,
impacts of these developments and how their property can be best accessed. Staff asked all
these property owners to meet to try and' resolve how each development is best designed.
Access between and through each parcel is a critical issue and it is the city's job to ensure t
that the subdivisions do not land lock other parcels. In addition, access needs to be provided
in a location that takes into consideration the natural features of the land. This has been a
very difficult p ocess for staff. We have spent numerous hours exploring design options. All
three affected parcels have been working with the city.
The Lake Lucy Road alignment is such a significant issue and impacts this and adjoining '
developments t4 such an extent, that its alignment must be resolved. The city's preferred
' Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 3
' alignment for Lake Lucy Road is the southern alignment. Not only does this alignment
provide a community view of the open space /wetland, but it also provides better access to the
required stormwater ponding areas that will be provided adjacent to the wetland, it eliminates
front facing lots on Lake Lucy Road in Shamrock Ridge and the Brenden Pond development
to the west, and it reduces the amount of filling adjacent to the wetland by 10 feet (private
' road elevation 998 vs. Lake Lucy Road southern alignment station 13 +75 elevation 987.93).
The southern alignment provides the applicant with two alternatives for the development of
the western third of the project. Alternate 1 permits two cul -de -sacs running north from Lake
Lucy Road. While allowing the development to be completed on its own time, it does not
minimize the grading of the western part of the development. However, it does eliminate lots
fronting directly onto the collector road. The use of private roads, which permits up to a 10
percent grade, to access to the north may alleviate some of the grading that would be
necessary. Alternate 2 would outlot the western third of the development north of the Lake
Lucy Road alignment until access could be provided from the property to the north. The
southern alternative minimizes grading, protects trees, and provides spectacular home sites at
the top of the hill. However, the development time frame for this portion of the property is
indefinite and dependent on the development of the property to the north.
Staff has discussed with the City Attorney the possibility of requiring the applicant to outlot
the western third of the property until access could be provided from the north. His response
' was that if the applicant could provide a feasible alternative for development that met code
requirements, then the city could not require this area to be an outlot. Based on this decision,
staff reviewed both the applicant's development proposal and an alternative providing cul-de-
sacs to the north of a southern Lake Lucy Road alignment. Based on this review, staff felt
that the applicant's proposal was a better alternative and would result in less grading, tree
preservation along the northern property line and a buffer from Lake Lucy Road for the
property to the north.
Staff is recommending numerous revisions for the subdivision that will make the development
' acceptable, if not optimal, based on the applicant's proposal. While staff still believes that
the southern alignment for Lake Lucy Road is a better alignment for the community, should
the City Council approve the applicant's proposal, we have developed revisions that improve
the development. The approximate 546 feet of open space north of the proposed alignment
( Outlot B) does offer the city some benefit from the northern alignment of Lake Lucy Road,
including landscape enhancement and buffering the impacts of Lake Lucy Road from the
property to the north.
1
I
Shamrock Ridge '
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994 '
Update 9/21/94
Page 4
BACKGROUNID
,
This property is
currently being used as a, farmstead by the applicant. Their home is located
in the southeastern
portion of the property with the remainder being farmed. Staff has met ,
individually with
the applicant's consulting engineer and surveyor to express our concerns
about the initially
proposed alignment of Lake Lucy Road which bisected the site and
connected to the
property to the west at the northwest corner of the property. At that time, ,
staff advised the
engineer that the preferred alignment of Lake Lucy Road was at the bottom
of the slope adJ
ent to the natural wetland. Staff met on August 2, 1994 with the applicant
and the abutting
'
property owners in order to determine the appropriate locations for street
connections and
to discuss the issues involved in this development. Of special concern is the
Lake Lucy Road
extension location and providing convenient and feasible street access to the
property to the
orth. Since these meetings, the applicant has revised the plat by moving the
Lake Lucy Road
extension first sixty feet and then an additional 20 feet south of the northern
property line.
On August 17, 1
94, the Planning Commission tabled the proposed development in order to
permit the applicant
to revise the plans consistent with staff recommendations. At that time, '
the Planning Commission
appeared to be of a consensus that the Lake Lucy Road alignment
be revised to the
south. While meeting some of the conditions of the original report, the
applicant contimied
to provide a northerly alignment for Lake Lucy Road. I
Staff discussed tie following recommendations with the applicant's engineer, Chuck Plowe,
on Tuesday, Au ust 30, 1994. Staff believes that as a compromise, the incorporation of these
recommendation as well as the other conditions of approval, would make the proposed plat
acceptable. The revised plans based on a, portion of these recommendations were presented to
the Planning Commission at their September 7, 1994. '
1. Extend Jennifer Way and utilities to the north property line (James Court is only the
cul -de -sa ). Condition met at time of public hearing. r
2. Provide a private drive easement for Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 2. (If such an access '
is not fea��sible for Lot 14, Block 2, then Lot 14 should be eliminated and Lots 12 and
13 made arger.) Condition met at time of public hearing.
3. Provide 3 to 1 slope on the north side of the Lake Riley Road right -of -way in the
western third of the project. May ;require the realignment of the right -of -way 20 feet
to the south. Condition not met at time of public hearing. '
1
1 Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 5
' 4. Align the Lake Lucy Road and begin curve to the southwest to match the alignment in
Brenden Pond to the west. Condition not met at time of public hearing.
5. Provide 60 foot right -of -way for Mary Bay and Gwendolen Court. Condition met at
time of public hearing.
' 6. Provide a 4 to 1 slope to access the stormwater pond between Mary Bay and
Gwendolen Court. Condition not met at time of public hearing.
' 7. Combine the drainage discharge pipe for Mary Bay and Gwendolen Courts into one
discharge pipe. Condition not met at time of public hearing.
9. Delete ponding area on Lots 33 and 34, Block 1 and replace with a berm. Condition
met at time of public hearing.
' 10. Look at the grading for Lots 4 through 8, Block 2 to promote stormwater drainage
from the front to the rear, rather than concentrating stormwater flows to the rear of
Lot 4. Condition not met at time of public hearing.
11. Verify the proper sizing of the stormwater ponds on site based on the surface water
' management plan. Condition not met at time of public hearing.
The applicant has incorporated additional revisions into the plat that is being presented for
' City Council review and approval. Specifically, the applicant has curved the Lake Lucy Road
alignment to meet the proposed alignment within the Brenden Pond development being
proposed to the west. In addition, the applicant has replaced the western most cul -de -sac with
a private road, reduced the total number of lots by one to 48, and moved the northern private
road outside the 30 foot conservation easement.
' REZONING
The property is designated as Residential - Low Density (net density range 1.2 - 4.0
' units /ac.). The proposed rezoning of the property to Single Family Residential is consistent
with this land use designation. Staff supports the requested rezoning.
WETLANDS
According to the wetland delineation performed by Arlig Environmental, Inc., three wetlands
have been identified on -site and they are described as follows:
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1992,
Revised Septem�er 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 6
Basin 1 is the 1 ge wetland located on the western boundary of the site.
extends off -site o the west; approximately 4.7 acres of wetland is on -site.
classified as a natural wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance.
it
The wetland ,
The wetland is
Basin 2 is located along the eastern edge ,of the property. The wetland is approximately 0.8
acre in size. The wetland is classified as, ag/urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. It
appears that this basin will be eliminated land converted into a stormwater treatment pond as a
result of the pro osed development and the extension of Lake Lucy Road. As a result, the
area filled will r' uire mitigation. The Army Corps of Engineers will require mitigation for
fill and excavation at a ratio of 1:1. However, in accordance to state and local regulations, a
ratio of 2:1 is required.
Basin 3 is locat in the southeastern corner of the site. The wetland extends off -site to the
south; approxim tely 0.4 acre of wetland Is on -site. This wetland is part of a wetland
complex and it ains south into Basin 1.I The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the
City's Wetland dinance.
Regulations
A replacement lan will be required as part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)
and Wetland Ci�y Ordinance (CWO) requirements. The City administers the WCA. In
addition to the replacement plan requirements, 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. The Army
Corps of Engineers rs will also require a permit application for the alteration of wetlands. They
should be contacted for their requirements.
The WCA and tie CWO require a wetland replacement ratio of 2:1 for wetlands filled. The
wetland replacei nent plan should be designed to meet the existing functions and values that
have been removed as a result of filling in other wetlands. It is possible to replace the
wetlands at a ratio of 1:1 in upland and a ratio of 1:1 as wetland restoration. The City is
going to start a__IwIetland bank in the near future by restoring wetlands that have been drained.
It may be possible to purchase banking points as part of the mitigation for this site. Staff
thinks that wetland replacement should occur in the large wetland to the west rather than
creating a small wetland adjacent to a large stormwater pond.
The WCA was
prudent. Alten
wetland alterati
vritten to replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible or
itives for avoiding wetland impacts should be considered as part of the
permit process.
I�j
r�
I.
' Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
' Update 9/21/94
Page 7
' In addition, to the requirements of the WCA, the CWO 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 is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. The proposed
grading plan will have to show the buffer strip and the appropriate house setbacks.
' SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
' The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP
will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies
the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to
allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies.
In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for
' ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality
portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus
concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at
each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of
improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus
reduction in priority water bodies.
' In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require
the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre - developed and post developed
' drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre - developed and post - developed
conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre - developed conditions for
a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm duration. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in
' accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2.5 -inch rainfall. In
addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch
basins will also be required. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water
' elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre - developed and post - developed
conditions.
Water Quality
The SWMP has established a user fee for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be
equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load
leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be
based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are
calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50
per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. If the applicant constructs the water quality
basins, these fees will be waived and credit given for any oversizing.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised Septem)er 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 8
Water Ouantity
The SWMP has established a user fee for different land uses based on an average, city-wide
rate for the insullation 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 $63,360 assuming 32 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the
applicant's surf ce water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with
the SWMP whilh include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes,
ponding, etc. The exact fees will be determined after final review and approval of the
construction plans and specifications and Lake Lucy Road assessment methodology if
applicable.
DRAINAGE
The development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed. The SWMP should be
reviewed by the applicant's engineer and the site designed in accordance with the SWMP
design to the extent feasibly possible. All runoff shall be pretreated before discharge to any
of the existing etlands. Similar to Brenden Pond, Lake Lucy Road will intersect this parcel.
The applicant's plans have included a segment of Lake Lucy Road; however, it does not
correspond to the City's feasibility study. The Lake Lucy Road alignment is shifted northerly
to facilitate two cul -de -sacs on the south' side of Lake Lucy Road adjacent to wetlands. A
storm water retention pond to pretreat runoff from the cul -de -sacs and part of Lake Lucy
Road is proposi A adjacent to the wetland. Another storm water treatment pond is proposed
adjacent to Gal in Boulevard lying both inorth and south of Lake Lucy Road. Staff has
recommended w the applicant's engineer to delete the southerly pond and extend storm sewer
to the existing �ulvert underneath Galpir Boulevard.
Depending on
developer, for
public improve
partially assess
route where St
Unfortunately,
would be for tl
credit for oven
According to t
proposed on d
Lucy Road an(
The applicant
ie applicant's timing, they may petition the City, similar to the Brenden Ponds
ie construction of Lake Lucy Road through the parcel. This would be a 429
vent project whereby the drainage, utility and street improvements would be
d back to the benefitting property owners. This alignment is also a State -Aid
to -Aid funding may play, a role to assist in the funding on the project.
.tate aid funds have been! encumbered for the next three years. Another option
e applicant to construct the entire segment of Lake Lucy Road and be given
zing any utility lines and credit for the trail system along Lake Lucy Road.
e City's SWMP, three storm water pretreatment ponds (Walker ponds) are
site. One is located just east of Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of Lake
Galpin Boulevard. Another one is located just northerly of the wetland areas.
as proposed constructing two of the three ponding areas. The SWMP also
1
71
L
�I
�J
' Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
' Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 9
' proposes a third water quality basin at the end of the ravine in the southwest corner of this
development and extends westerly into Brenden Pond. It may be feasible to consider
' combining the proposed pond between Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay with the proposed
SWMP pond in the southwest corner and Brenden Pond. This area then could be utilized as a
mitigation area. The applicant may be given credit for the oversizing of the storm water
' treatment ponds and any trunk storm sewer facilities they install in conjunction with the
overall development. This will be further reviewed upon the final plat and construction plan
and specification review process. Staff encourages the applicant's engineer to review the
City's SWMP plan for appropriate sizing of the ponding areas and trunk storm sewers. The
storm ponds should be designed with access in mind. A 4:1 side slope is required along/over
the storm pipe which discharges into the pond. The pond should be designed and constructed
' with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL) for the first one foot (depth) of water and
the remaining at 3:1. Another alternative would be to design the pond with 4:1 slopes
overall.
' The plans have combined the storm sewer lines from Mary Bay and the westerly private
driveway. However, staff is not satisfied with this proposal from a maintenance standpoint
and believe better alternatives exist. Staff is confident with the upgrade of Lake Lucy Road
and prior to final plat approval, this issue can be resolved.
GRADING
The site contains very steep slopes in the northwesterly portion of the site as well as a small
ravine area. The slopes along the northerly portion are in the range of 20% to 30 %. With
these types of slopes it is very difficult to prepare a site for streets and house pads without
significant grading. Staff has reviewed the plan and has prepared a few options with what we
believe would be a more feasible approach to developing the steeper part of the site (westerly
1/3). We believe if the parcel to the north (Mancino) was to develop prior to this
development we would require that a street be extended to the northerly line of this plat for a
future cul -de -sac to extend lots off of this high ridge. This would make use of the existing
topographic features of the property without substantially altering the grades. This would also
' allow for Lake Lucy Road to be extended along the southerly portion of the site to maintain a
sufficient buffer and setback below the proposed homes along the northerly portion of the
development. It would also allow for sufficient wetland mitigation and storm water treatment
ponds adjacent to the wetland. One of the drawbacks with regards to this approach would be
the lack of benefit that this development would receive from Lake Lucy Road. It is the
City's intent to partially assess the benefitting properties for the construction of Lake Lucy
Road; however, in this segment where no direct benefit is received the City would have
difficulty assessing a portion of Lake Lucy Road. However, the City may have alternative
11
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994 -I
Revised Septe 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 10
financing methods such as State Aid to assist in developing the roadway system.
Unfortunately, t4ese funds are encumbered for the next three years.
The grading plan as revised with the Lake Lucy roadway alignment to the north has flattened
the backslopes ftom. 2.5:1 to 3:1 with a boulevard area. The plans have also realigned Lake
Lucy Road in art attempt to be compatible with Lake Lucy Road proposed within the Brenden
Pond subdivision directly to the west. This should be made a condition of approval should
this alignment still need to be adjusted. In addition, this alignment will not match with the
development to a west ( Brenden Pond). Staff has been working with the applicant's
engineer in realigning Lake Lucy Road to match to the west and provide appropriate
boulevards and )ackslopes. This appears to have been achieved by slightly curving Lake
Lucy Road southwesterly and shifting the street southerly. Lots 4, 5 and 13, Block 4 are
proposed to be serviced off a private driveway off of Jennifer Way. The plans propose a
street stub north towards the Mancino's. from Jennifer Way. The street could terminate at a
point short of tt a tree line which would provide access to the last Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 4
and future exterision to Mancino's if desired.
Staff is concerned with sight lines when exiting the westerly private driveway onto Lake Lucy
Road due to a proposed berm. Staff recommends that the berm be relocated westerly to
improve sight distance.
The applicant is proposing water quality ponds adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. Galpin
Boulevard is classified as a local collector street and will need additional right -of -way
dedicated with this plat. According to Carver County, a minimum corridor of 100 feet should
be reserved for uture upgrading to a four -lane street. The applicant is to dedicating an
additional 17 fe t of right -of -way along Galpin Boulevard to fulfill the County's requirement.
The backyard drainage from Lots 1 through 11, Block 3 will be directed to a wetland located
in the southeast corner of the site. An interim sediment pond is proposed to treat runoff prior
to entering the
Staff is concen
directs runoff e
the applicant's
drainage patter.
yards to addres
the grade to pr
the home will 1
UTILITIES
The sediment pond may be removed once the lots are revegetated.
d about the grading behind Lots 4 through 8, Block 2. The proposed grade
Temely close to the house pad on Lot 4, Block 2. Staff has recommended to
igineer that this needs to be revised to promote a rear yard to front yard
The engineer has proposed a storm sewer to convey runoff from these rear
this. However, staff still encourages the applicant's engineer to rear design
note a back to front drainage pattern. If the catch basin becomes plugged,
subject to flooding.
0
1
' Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
' Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 11
' As part of the City's Lake Lucy Road extension, the utilities will be brought to the
intersection of proposed Pond View Court and Lake Lucy Road approximately 400 feet west
' of this development. Utilities are proposed to be extended along Lake Lucy Road. However,
since there will be a gap between the plats, it will be necessary for the City and/or developer
to extend Lake Lucy Road to service this development. Without that project, this
development is premature.
Staff has reviewed the access and utility service needs to the Mancino parcel and believes it
is prudent, at this time, to require extension of utilities and street access north along Jennifer
Way to potentially serve a portion of Mancino's. The applicant has extended Jennifer Way
with utilities north for future service of the Mancino parcel.
J
F�
L
The existing home on Lot 14, Block 3 (Ryan's) is currently on a septic and well system. The
house should be connected to the new sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes
operational. The well may be utilized as long as it is on the same lot and functioning
properly. Once the well fails or the property owner sells, the property shall be required to
connect to city water per city ordinance.
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 all wetlands being preserved. 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. 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.
STREETS
Access to the development is proposed from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Another
access will also be extended from the west if the City continues with the extension of Lake
Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road may be built under the City's improvement project program if
so petitioned by the applicant and authorized by the City Council. 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. No lots are proposed to have direct access onto Lake Lucy Road.
The alignment of Lake Lucy Road west of this development has not been finalized. The City
has prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised Septemt
Update 9/21/94
Page 12
1, 1994
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 is located just west of this development
and proceeding ahead with a preliminary plat (Gestach parcel - Brenden Ponds). The other
parcel ( Mancino) is located to the north of this development. Staff has reviewed with the
property owners several options for access to the Mancino parcel from the Brenden Pond
development an this development. Brenden Pond will be providing the Mancino parcel
access to the we terly portion via private driveway. Staff has also met with the Ryans to
discuss two pot( itial alignments for Lake, Lucy Road which impact this development. There
is no clear -cut alignment of Lake Lucy Road that satisfies all of the property owners in this
situation. The preliminary plat of Shamrock Ridge has utilized a northerly alignment of Lake
Lucy Road thro gh their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and is unclear from
a design standpa int if Lake Lucy Road will be compatible with the plat to the west (Brenden
Pond). Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through this
parcel which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very steep
slopes. However, this alignment works well with the existing terrain and minimizes impacts
to the wetlands. The resulting impact from the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road
requires short, seep cul -de -sacs as well as tuck -under type homes to the north of Lake Lucy
Road unless access is from the north (Mancinos). Staff still believes that the southerly
alignment is the preferred alignment for 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 on all the s xeets and construction of the City's standard roadway section for the interior
streets. Street grades range from 0.5% to 7% which is the City's maximum grade allowed.
Detailed constru aion plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as
part of the final plat submittal. Access to the Mancino parcel shall be provided by extending
Jennifer Way to the north of James Court and conditions stipulated in the development
contract that this street may be extended in the future. A temporary cul -de -sac will be
necessary at the end of Jennifer Way. No additional easements will be necessary and the
turnaround can built within the proposed right -of -way.
Conclusion
Staff has reviei
Lucy Road) shy
northerly Lake
with the inters(
to provide acct
parcel and still
an appropriate
I this plat submittal and still believes that the southerly alignment (Lake
d be followed. However, as a compromise, staff would be open to a
cy Road alignment if the applicant can revise Lake Lucy Road to match
on proposed in Brenden Pond. Jennifer Way has been extended to the north
to the Mancino parcel This leaves development flexibility to the Mancino
ows both parcels (Brenden Pond and Ryan) to develop. Staff believes it is
y to develop the westerly one -third of the Ryan development by accessing
I
l_
'1
d
u
' Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
' Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 13
' from Mancinos. Due to steep grades, we believe that this site should be accessed from the
north to retain its topographic features. H 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 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.
' LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
A landscape buffer shall be required along the length of County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard,
' and along both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, section 18 -61 (a) (5). This buffer
landscaping shall be developed as part of the preliminary and final plat submittal for city
approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required. A
1 woodland management plan must also be prepared as part of the platting process. In addition,
a landscape plan including the landscape buffer and forestation and replacement planting must
be prepared and approved by the city. The choice of species in the preliminary landscaping
plan are appropriate and acceptable, but small monocultures of trees have been created by
grouping the similar species. Mixing a variety of species allows for diversity within your
urban forest, thereby, increasing the overall health of it and reducing the chances of
widespread outbreaks of disease. Symmetry along boulevards need not be lost by using
diversity. Aesthetic avenues can be attained without the disadvantages associated with
' monocultures. Choosing trees of different species that will attain similar heights or have
similar branching characteristics is an excellent alternative.
' The landscaping plan requires an additional 42 trees based on staff's analysis of the tree
preservation, forestation, and replacement requirements for a total of 284 trees. Staff
recommends that the additional 42 trees be incorporated in the landscaping plan as follows:
1. Nine trees staggered for a windbreak along the western property lines of Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1. Windbreak trees shall include spruce (Black Hills, Norway, White).
' 2. Five trees grouped near the corners of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 1; 10 trees grouped
along the rear lot lines of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 1; and 18 trees in groupings
along the rear lot lines of Lots 2 through 11, Block 3. Rear yard tree selection shall
be River Birch, Ohio Buckeye, Catalpa, Silver Queen Maple, White or Bur Oak,
Hawthorne, Aspen, Arborvitae, and Balsam or White Fir.
1 In addition, the following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of
the final plat: a 30 foot easement along the northern boundary of the site; a thirty foot
!J
Shamrock Ridgel '
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994 ,
Update 9/21/94
Page 14
easement along Ihe western lot lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; the southern 100 feet of the '
eastern 30 feet o Lot 4, Block 1; the southern 30 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 5, Block
1; the northern 70 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 6, Block 1; the eastern 30 feet of Lots 8 ,
and 9, Block 1; a western 30 feet of Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 1; the eastern 30 feet of
Lots 2 through 7 , Block 3; and the western 30 feet of Lots 8 through 11, Block 3. (Note:
only the 30 foot easement along the northern property line is a conservation easement. The ,
remaining easement areas are for forestation and replacement purposes.)
To provide slope stabilization north of Lake Lucy Road on Outlot B, Sumac shall be planted
7 feet on center. Such plantings shall be 'staggered to provide better stabilization and
aesthetic appeal. Additionally, this areas ;must be mulched and seeded after grading.
As P P ro osed, th re is very little tree preservation being done except for within the wetland '
area. Staff does not concur with the applicant's designation of trees to be saved. By viewing
the landscaping plan and the grading plan, it is obvious that some of the trees in Lots 2, 3, 7,
and 8, Block 1, Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, and Lots 6, 7, 9, and 13, Block 3 will not be "saved."
Staff estimates tiat approximately one -third of the existing tree canopy is being preserved. In
reviewing the applicant's tree preservation plans and baseline canopy coverage calculations,
staff believes that the calculations are in error. In reviewing the tree plan, staff estimates that
there is a 13 percent baseline canopy coverage (4.25 acres or 185,346 square feet in 32.63
acres of net developable land). Tree canopy within a designated wetland is excluded from '
calculation. The required post development canopy coverage is 25 percent or a total of 8.16
acres of tree c dopy. To meet the minimum canopy coverage requirements, the developer
would need todvelop a forestation plan for 3.91 acres (8.16 - 4.25) which would require the
planting of 156 gees (3.91 x 43,560 / 1,089). In addition, because the developer is removing
canopy coverage that is required to meet their minimum canopy coverage, they must replace
the removed c opy area at a rate of 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed. ,
Since the applic t did not provide these calculations, staff has estimated that the removed
canopy coverage area is approximately 116,546 square feet. The replacement planting is then
calculated at 13,855 square feet (116,564 x 1.2). The number of trees required for
replacement planting is calculated at 128 (trees (139,855/1089). The total tree planting
requirement as Fart of the development's'lorestation and tree replacement plantings is 284 ,
trees.
PARKS AND RECREATION I
The Park and R creation Commission met on July 26, 1994 to review this proposal. The
Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council require the following ,
conditions of ap�roval in regard to park and trails for the Shamrock Ridge plat:
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 15
1. Full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance.
2. An 8 ft. bituminous trail be constructed parallel to Lake Lucy Road. This construction
to be incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road Extension Project. The developer shall be
reimbursed for the cost of said trail from the city's trail fund.
3. Sufficient county road right -of -way /easements be maintained along County Road 117
(Galpin Boulevard) to accommodate possible future trail construction.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Block
Lot
Area (Sq. Ft.)
Frontage (ft.)
Depth (Ft.)
1
1
21,915
87.61#
186
2
39,294
182
228
3
38,439
212
258
4
24,769
87.61#
205
5
21,998
124
192
6
21,411
55.64*
181
7
25,749
55.64*
197
8
23,892
55.64*
163
9
18,906
124
157
10
18,827
116
143
11
15,637
90
174
12
16,975
90
189
13
21,111
80.84*
194
14
20,218
81.02*
200
15
22,213
83.03*
212
16
21,749
88*
226
17
15,000
101
246
2
1
18,165
105
156
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 16
I'
�J
r
J
1
2
15,333
102
141
42,178
207
211
4
43,591
97
183
27,632
69.42*
166
5
15,000
93
156
15,000
95
156
15,910
102
156
3
15,566
92
177
16,787
92
191
17,541
90
198
15,107
113
189
15,831
103
176
15,013
92
163
19,500
123
145
8
18,414
115
158
18,273
95
192
10
20,229
145
192
11
25,420
56.74*
197
12
54,993
77.99*
238
13
30,910
60.45*
217
4
26,217
120
185
5
19,148
95
201
6
24,463
115
212
4
20,104
14561*
141
2
15,000
109
162
I'
�J
r
J
1
' Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 17
L�
NOTES: *Meets minimum lot width at building setback line. #Does not met code
requirements.
IFINDINGS
J
Subdivision, Section 18 -39 (f)
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets the minimum lot area requirements of the
RSF, Residential Single Family District. Section 18 -60 (d) of the City Code
requires that lots be placed to protect natural amenities such as vegetation,
wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. While alternate site
designs may provide additional protection of natural resources, the proposal has
been revised to lessen the impacts of the development on the site. Wetland
mitigation areas and stormwater ponding areas shall be provided within the
plat. Section 18 -57 (1) states that where a proposed subdivision is adjacent to a
limited access highway, arterial or collector street, there shall be no direct
vehicular or pedestrian access form individual lots to such highways or streets.
Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 4 shall be served by a private road from Jennifer Way
and not via direct access to Lake Lucy Road.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
3
20,096
136
177
4
26,698
104
278
5
20,816
102
227
6
18,547
100
179
Outlot A
216,049
Outlot B
59,701
Total Lots
47
1,055,682
Avg. Lot
22,461
NOTES: *Meets minimum lot width at building setback line. #Does not met code
requirements.
IFINDINGS
J
Subdivision, Section 18 -39 (f)
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets the minimum lot area requirements of the
RSF, Residential Single Family District. Section 18 -60 (d) of the City Code
requires that lots be placed to protect natural amenities such as vegetation,
wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. While alternate site
designs may provide additional protection of natural resources, the proposal has
been revised to lessen the impacts of the development on the site. Wetland
mitigation areas and stormwater ponding areas shall be provided within the
plat. Section 18 -57 (1) states that where a proposed subdivision is adjacent to a
limited access highway, arterial or collector street, there shall be no direct
vehicular or pedestrian access form individual lots to such highways or streets.
Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 4 shall be served by a private road from Jennifer Way
and not via direct access to Lake Lucy Road.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Shamrock Ridge '
August 17, 199
Revised September 1, 1994 ,
Update 9/21/94
Page 18
F' din The proposed subdivision is consistent with the city's land use plan. r
The alignment for the Lake Lucy Road does not comply with the city's
preferred alignment. However, the alternative proposed is a feasible alignment. ,
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
dr '
water 'nage are suitable for the'proposed development;
iin : The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the '
3itions specified in this report. The applicant's proposed stormwater
ding system must be revised and a final design will be determined prior to
1 platting. The steep slopes on the western half of the development make '
development of this area problematic at best based on the development
posal due to the severe slopes. While alternate site designs may provide
itional protection of natural resources, the proposal has been revised to ,
en the impacts of the development on the site.
4. The proposed
subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, '
sewage disposal,
streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding:
The sto rmw ondin must be revised. This can be resolved based
a ter p g
on
staff recommendations prior to final platting. If the applicant does not
intend
to construct Lake Lucy Road, then the applicant needs to petition the ,
city
for extension of Lake Lucy Road and utilities.
5. The proposed
subdivision will not, cause environmental damage; '
Findin
: The proposed subdivision will impact the land form and existing
wetlands
and vegetation by the amount of grading. Staff is recommending
changes
to minimize the impact.
6. The proposed
subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. '
Finding:
The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, '
bit
rather will expand and'provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
followine exists:
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 19
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems.
' Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban
infrastructure provided the utilities are extended from the west. Final
calculations for the provision of on site stormwater ponding, a final decision on
the alignment of Lake Lucy Road and providing access to the northwest third
of the development must be made prior to final platting.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
Wetland Alteration Permit (Section 20 -407)
1 When approving a wetland alteration permit, the following principals shall be adhered to:
I 1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity may destroy or diminish the
wetland.
' Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the eastern
end of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during
agricultural practices. The applicant will be required to mitigate the wetland either
through the enhancement of a wetland within the site or another within the watershed
district as part of the city's wetland banking system.
2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and
its implementation.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland within the
required alignment for Lake Lucy Road extension. This wetland is isolated and has
been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposal minimizes the
impact of the development while at the same time replacing and enhancing the
wetland complexes.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland
activity and its implementation.
� I
Shamrock Ridg
August 17, 199
Revised Septen
Update 9/21/94
Page 20
1, 1994
Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands on site or within the watershed. Water
quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
4. Reducin or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the activity.
Finding: The proposed alteration's will benefit the proposed development in the area
by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the enhancement
and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its
stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. Water quality ponding
will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute
wetland veas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules
8420.0530 to 8420.0630.
Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within
the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The applicant is
proposing to fill a small parched wetland within the Lake Lucy Road extension
alignment. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural
practices. The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of thel wetlands in the area. Water quality ponding will be
vrovided to filter storm water.
The Planning
development.
development i
the Lake Lucy
concerned that
steep slopes, d
Planning Conn
that the applic�
northern align
The Planning (
(#94 -3), denial
ommission met on August 17 and September 7, 1994 to review the proposed
)n August 17, 1994, the Planning Commission tabled the proposed
order to permit the applicant to revise the plans consistent with staff
is. At that time, the Planning Commission appeared to be of a consensus that
Road alignment be revised to the south. The Planning Commission was also
the site development be environmentally sensitive, especially in regards to the
treed areas, and the wetland. At the September 7, 1994 meeting, the
fission again reviewed the proposed development. This review was of a plan
nt had prepared based upon a compromise with staff that incorporated the
lent of the Lake Lucy Road extension.
!ommission voted 4 for and 0 against to recommend denial of the rezoning
of preliminary plat (#94 -7), and denial of wetland alteration permit (#94 -3).
t
1
I
I.
' Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 21
The Planning Commission treated the entire development approval, rezoning, preliminary plat,
and wetland alteration permit, as one package and therefore denied each element of the
approval. The following issues were the basis of the Planning Commissions recommendation
for denial:
1. Lack of sensitivity to the surrounding community.
2. Lack of environmental sensitivity: e.g. excessive grading, minimal tree preservation,
1 alteration of natural land form, not taking advantage of the natural assets of the land,
and elimination of natural resource corridors.
3. Failure to incorporate primary location for Lake Lucy Road, i.e., the southern
alignment.
4. Potential alternate site designs that could better protect natural amenities such as
vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, and water courses pursuant to Section 18 -60.
RECOMMENDATION
Should the City Council approve the applicant's proposal, staff recommends that the City
Council adopt the following motions:
Rezoning
' "The City Council approves case #94 -3 rezoning 37.92 acres from RR, Rural Residential to
RSF, Single Family Residential."
Subdivision
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat case #94 -7 subdivision subject to the
following conditions:
1. Revise the lot lines for Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, to provide a minimum of 90 feet of
frontage for Lots 1 and 4.
2. Submit revised utility plans for approval of fire hydrant locations. Fire hydrant
spacing is 300 feet maximum. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details.
3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
Shamrock Ridg(
August 17, 199,
Revised Septem
Update 9/21/94
Page 22
fire hy
Ordina
4. A turn.
private
5.
The con
6.
Either a
the loca
7.
Submit
for apps
8.
Full par
a
1, 1994 1
is can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City ,
Sec. 9 -1.
and acceptable to the city's Fire Marshal shall be provided at the end of the '
3 off of Jennifer Way.
Dn portion of the private roads shall be signed "No Parking Fire Lane."
►ument sign or street sign shall be provided for the private roads to aid in
of homes on private roads for emergency vehicles.
radius and cul -de -sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal
Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203.
and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance. I
An 8 foot bituminous trail shall be constructed parallel to Lake Lucy Road. The
construction will be incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road extension project. The
develope- shall be reimbursed for the full cost of said trail from the city's trail fund if
the developer constructs said trail 'as part of their project.
10. Obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their removal.
11. A landscape buffer shall be required along the length of County Road 117, Galpin
Boulevard, and along both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, section 18 -61 (a)
(5). This buffer landscaping shall be developed as part of the preliminary and final
plat submittal m for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the
city shal be required. A woodland management plan must also be prepared as part of
the platting process. A landscape' plan including the landscape buffer, forestation and
replacement planting must be prepared and approved by the city. The landscape plan
and woodland management plan must be prepared by a landscape professional.
12. Prepare aseline canopy coverage calculations and estimated canopy coverage removal
area. , erlay the tree plan on the grading plan in order to verify tree preservation.
13.
must be
maybe ]
short cul
I trees along Lake Lucy Road, Jennifer Way, James Court, and Anne Alcove
iverse with no more than two trees of the same species in a row. Mary Bay
rating with one species ;considering the trees may provide a theme for the
f'
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 23
14. The tamaracks on the north side of Lake Lucy Road and the west side of County Road
117 are being used as screening from traffic or noise. Since tamaracks lose their
needles in the winter, another evergreen shall be used to buffer the development.
15. The landscaping plan requires an additional 42 trees based on staff's analysis of the
tree preservation, forestation, and replacement requirements for a total of 284 trees.
Staff recommends that the additional 42 trees be incorporated in the landscaping plan
as follows:
a. Nine trees staggered for a windbreak along the western property lines of Lots 1
and 2, Block 1. Windbreak trees shall include spruce (Black Hills, Norway,
White).
b. Five trees grouped near the corners of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 1; 10 trees
grouped along the rear lot lines of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 1; and 18
trees in groupings along the rear lot lines of Lots 2 through 11, Block 3. Rear
yard tree selection shall be River Birch, Ohio Buckeye, Catalpa, Silver Queen
Maple, White or Bur Oak, Hawthorne, Aspen, Arborvitae, and Balsam or
White Fir.
16. The following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of the
final plat: a 30 foot easement along the northern boundary of the site; a 30 foot
easement along the western lot lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; the southern 100 feet of
' the eastern 30 feet of Lot 4, Block 1; the southern 30 feet of the western 30 feet of
Lot 5, Block 1; the northern 70 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 6, Block 1; the
eastern 30 feet of Lots 8 and 9, Block 1; the western 30 feet of Lots 10, 11, and 12,
Block 1; the eastern 30 feet of Lots 2 through 7, Block 3; and the western 30 feet of
Lots 8 through 11, Block 3.
17. To provide slope stabilization north of Lake Lucy Road on Outlot B, Sumac shall be
planted 7 feet on center. Such plantings shall be staggered to provide better
stabilization and aesthetic appeal. Additionally, this areas must be seeded.
18. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post -
developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events. Normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations
between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised Septeml
Update 9/21/94
Page 24
1, 1994
basins ar� being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall
be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
l
19.
The proposed
sed development will be responsible for a water quantity user fee of $63,360
assuming
32 acres of developable land. Water quantity and quality fees may or may
not be as
essed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road improvement project assessment
methodol
gy. These fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to
the City's
SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending
formal approval
of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the
'
fees, they
will be changed prior to! final plat.
20.
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.
21.
i
The ex is
n outbuildings and an septic stem or wells on the site shall be
g g y p y
abandoned
in accordance with City and/or State codes. The existing house on Lot 14,
Block 3
hall be connected to the new sanitary sewer line within 30 days after the line
becomes
available. The well may be utilized as long as the well is on the lot and
functional.
Once the well fails or the property is sold the property owner shall
connect to
city water.
22.
Drainage
and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat.
The minimum
easement width should be 20 feet. Maintenance access to the ponding
'
areas shall
be provided. Slopes shall not exceed 4:1 over the easement areas.
23.
The appl
cant will be required to 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.
24.
All utility
and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition o-
the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
utility construction
plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and
formal approval
by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration.
25.
The applican
t shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed
District,
bNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies
and coml
ly with their conditions of approval.
l
II
U
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 25
26. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and
disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading
' unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate
otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
27. 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.
28. The existing home shall change its address to be compatible with the City's addressing
system once the street has been constructed adjacent the house.
29. The grading plan shall be revised as follows: 1) provide for 2% boulevards and 3:1
side slopes adjacent to all streets in accordance to the City's typical street standards;
2) berming shall be prohibited from all street right -of -ways; 3) the proposed pond
between Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay shall be combined/relocated to the west of
Gwendolen Court; 4) grading in the rear yards of Lots 4 through 8, Block 2 shall be
revised to drain rear to front; 5) an interim sediment pond shall be provided on Lot
12, Block 3 until Lots 1 through 12, Block 3 are fully revegetated; 6) storm ponds
shall be designed and constructed with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL)
for the first one foot (depth) of water and then 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 slopes overall.
' 7) the proposed berm west of the westerly private driveway shall be relocated westerly
to improve sight distance on Lake Lucy Road from the private driveway.
30. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet State -Aid standards.
31. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon utilities being extended
from Brenden Pond unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for
review and approval.
32. Lake Lucy Road shall be realigned southerly to be compatible with the intersection
proposed in Brenden Pond (Lake Lucy Road and Pondview Court).
33. Direct driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road shall be prohibited. A private driveway
shall be required to access Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 4 in accordance to the City's
private driveway ordinance."
Wetland Alteration Permit
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 19941
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Page 26
"The City Counc it approves wetland alteration permit #94 -3 subject to the following
conditions:
1. 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 d will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The proposed buffer strip shall be
shown ooi the grading plan.
2. The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland
Consery ation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans,
wetland delineation report, a map with wetland data points, at least one data sheet for
each wet and identifying upland areas and a map of the soils."
1.
Developrient
Review Application
2.
Preliminary
Plat, Original Submittal
Submittal #1, by Planning Commission 8/17/94
3.
Preliminary
Plat, Revised reviewed
4.
Preliminary
Plat, Revised Submittal #2, reviewed by Planning Commission 9/7194
5.
Preliminary
Plat, Revised Submittal #3
6.
Tree Plat
7.
Landscar
ing Plan
8.
Memo from
Bill Weckman to Chanhassen Planning Department dated 8/2/94
9.
Memo fr
m Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 7/20/94
,
10.
Memo fr
m Mark Littfin to Bob Generous dated 7/7/94
11.
Letter from
Joe Richter to Bob Generous dated 7/18/94
'
12.
Lake Lucy
Road Alignment, Alternate 1
13.
Public Hearing
Notice and Mailing List
14.
Planning
Commission Minutes of $/17/94
15.
Letter from
Charles W. Plowe to Bob Generous dated 8/26/94
16.
Memo from
Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel to Bob Generous dated 8/31/94
17.
Proposed
Street Changes
18.
Planning
Commission Minutes of 9/7194
19.
Letter from
Charles Plowe to Bob Generous dated 9/14/94
' CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
' (612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Ed & Mary Ryan OWNER: Ed & Mary Ryan
ADDRESS: 6730 Galpin Boulevard ADDRESS:
' Excelsior, MN 55331
' TELEPHONE (Day time) 943 -1410 TELEPHONE: 474 -1013
1.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11.
Vacation of ROW /Easements
2.
Conditional Use Permit
12.
Variance
3.
Grading /Excavation Permit
13. X
Wetland Alteration Permit $a�0
4.
Interim Use Permit
1.4.
Zoning Appeal
5.
Planned Unit Development
15.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6. X
Rezoning
�SGO
7.
Sign Permits
8.
Sign Plan Review
X
Notification Signs
9.
Site Plan Review
X
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost"
$100 CUP /SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10. X
Subdivision (q,o f 790)
TOTAL FEE $ 1 A6 f
2030 —
A list of al property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
' Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
81r2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
t" Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME Shamrock Ridge
LOCATION 6730 Galpin Blvd Excelsior, MN 55331
LEGAL DESCRIPTION see enclosed
PRESENT ZONINGR
REQUESTED ZONING RSF
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Single !!Family AG
REQUESTED LAND US DESIGNATION Single Family Residential
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Prelimary Plat
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to c etermine 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 oI Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to matte 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 ith the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I Iso understand that a er the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
agai st he title to the prc erty for which the approval %permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Off' e d the original d u 4retu to City Hall Records.
ig a r t i L� Dat
Signa ture of Fee
Date
Application Received on 7— r ' Fee Paid /930 Receipt No.
The applicant should
meeting. If not conta
tact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
I rl
1
1
1
e
c �
Y
op
Nil
of
' � I�A�� / / /C���l� /� ill •
- �, ��;s ,�_ �a; mac: = - =���+� ��f�1����.1' • . ��')��
f
J�o� v
066
JF�N_ I
Y"V
wlu
n
a
Fri
ic
JAL,' -a r= � 'lid'._ -- �' ,� �,`� --`' ,° ._,
"00
11
1070,
o
6J
m
990z_`
,ail
-----------
., . . . ......
tTom{
if-it
066
JF�N_ I
Y"V
wlu
n
a
Fri
ic
JAL,' -a r= � 'lid'._ -- �' ,� �,`� --`' ,° ._,
"00
11
1070,
o
6J
m
990z_`
066
JF�N_ I
Y"V
wlu
n
a
Fri
ic
JAL,' -a r= � 'lid'._ -- �' ,� �,`� --`' ,° ._,
"00
11
m
m
v
c
ov
n
r
I
N
r
xm
r. -4
fp
_j Olt
4 A z
vmmm
V2�Z� k '
LO
C) W3
IZI * AN
hu
i
Hll
WS
zw;
tww---A-
0'
C)
pw r
% 101 10
S90_
"Os
93
10
"0-0
96 ' 1
OOW"6 f
O
2MW
OWN I M; 00 0
�Y CL�MV/" kWt�W�MA
L _L
-4
a To !-- L ga "
s Q,
416
OD
s MIS. r
------------
pi
NIS, Ul
(pQe �0301
J11
'U
707
4.7
10
oz
�O
ID 1-0
1.10-0
9,6
A-Cc
066
M Om.
00,
416
OD
s MIS. r
------------
pi
NIS, Ul
(pQe �0301
J11
'U
707
4.7
10
oz
�O
ID 1-0
1.10-0
9,6
A-Cc
066
M Om.
00,
, ki
'41
t
4.
Auk
- W-M
PC41
Aga
El
4
i M
' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
(612) 361 -1010
FAX (612) 361 -1025
1
COUNTY Of CAQVEQ
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
600 EAST 4TH STREET, BOX 6
CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
1
August 2, 1994
Chanhassen TO: Planning g
1 FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat
1 Shamrock Ridge (94 -3 Rezoning and 94 -7 Subdivision)
Following are comments regarding the preliminary plat for the Shamrock Ridge subdivision
transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated July 5, 1994.
1. Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
1 functionally classified as Collector (Class 1) are:
Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
' 2 -lane Roadway 2 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
80' 100' 110' 120'
1 Urban Undivided Rural Divided
4 -1ane Roadway 4 -lane Roadway
' Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 110' 190' 200'
County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class 1) roadway.
1 in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 33 foot from centerline corridor
shown' would provide fora potential 66 foot ' corridor. This corridor would not. meet the ,
needs for an urban roadway. • .. 10. & •. • ..
The city may wish to consider a wider highway corridor alon the ro osed subdivision
tY Y 9 Y g p p
if a separate trailway, is to be constrdcted•along the county highway.; Additional width
-', may also be needed to accommodate public •utilities and laridscaping: _
2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right -of -way are subject
1 to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
3. Any proposed access construction, grading, or installation of drainage- structures within
the right -of -way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of,the county highway
department.
Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on Recycled Paper
Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste
4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed
to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right -
of -way (including turn removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need
to be completed in a manner that leaves the right -of -way in "as good or better condition"
than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision
in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for
the final ondition of the. county highway right -of -way. A clear understanding of this
responsi ility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the
city.
5. Any tre(
County.
an acco
utility c
Thank you for
development.
or landscaping completed within the right -of -way must be approved by the
Then locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining
able sight distance at 1 the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs
ig into the. right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead
irlcr�tinn
opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed
i
1
1 MEMORANDUM
C
1
CITY OF
0-HANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE a P.O. BOX 147 a CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 a FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building official
DATE: July 20, 1994
SUBJ: 94 -7 SUB, 94 -3 REZ & 94 -3 WAP (Shamrock Ridge)
I was asked to review the plans for the proposed Shamrock Ridge Subdivision
stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; JUL 5, 1994; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT."
Analysis:
Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage
floor elevations are required in order'to insure adequate plan review by the
Public Safety and Engineering Departments.
The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the
Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform
a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit
issuance. Standard designations (FLO'or RLO,.R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used
for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for
errors during the plan review process. I have included the 1993 memo which lists
and explains these designations..
There appears to be a number of building within the proposed subdivision which
will be demolished. Demolition permits are required before the removal of any
buildings. Proof of well abandonment and onsite sewage treatment system
abandonment is required prior to the issuance of a. demolition permit.
Reconnnendat ions:
1. Revise Grading /Drainage "Plan';to.indicate lowest floor level elevation, top
of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done
prior to„f,inal plat approval'." w
2. Revise the Grading/ Drainage Plan to show standard designations for
dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
3. Obtain demolition permits for any buildings to•;be removed before their
removal.
enclosure: 01/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo
g: \safety \sak \memos \plan \shamrock.bgl
CITY OF
HAKHA SK
690 COULTER,DRIVE • RO. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA '
55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORAN t TM
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff '
FROM: St ve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: Ja luary 29, 1993
SUBJ: D, yelling Type Designation '
We have been
dwelling that is
it might be hell
behind the requ
FLO or RLO
R
SE
SEWO
TU
wo
TU
equesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
cceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought . perhaps
ill to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
Designates Pront linokout or Rearslnokout 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.
Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with -the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings.
Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
Designates Tuck Under. Thii 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.
Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement, floor level approximately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
R S&O wO FLO
-' �RLO
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed 'to the
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure co m pliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
I'f
two PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
n
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Bob Generous, Planner H
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: July 7, 1994
SUBJ: Shamrock Ridge
Planning Case #94 -7 SUB, 94 -3 REZ, 94 -3 WAP
I have reviewed the site plan for the pr(
following requirements:
1. The submitted street names
2. Submit revised utility plan
family dwelling concept and have the
spacing is 300 feet maximum. Contact C
3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cal
insure that fire hydrants can be quickly loi
Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1.
4. Submit turning radius . and cul- de= sac , ;,d
Marshal for approva IPursuant ta;1:991
10.203..
g .-\cafety\n1194.7
fire hydrant locations. Fire hydrant
ahassen Fire Marshal for details.
•ound fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
TV, transformer boxes. This is to
Nl
red and safely operated. Pursuant to
to City Engineer and Fire
'ire Code Sec..10.204(d) and
You s
ould be aware that the project may be subject to
federal
OF
IN,HIEz�4L�.�
trSTATE
a additional comments on your project through our review
of applications
EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I
METRO
WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 5510ALEN0.
PHONENO.
772 -7910
does not appear to be within a shoreland or
flood
lain district. ,
aars
3. It pp
i
July 18, 1994
In general, we are on posed to the primary treatment
in wetlands. Sedimentation/ treatment facilities '
should
be used to protect the wetland from sedimentation and
water
wildlife
level bounces which are detrimental to the basins
values and water quality. The determination of what
Mr. Bob Generous,
Planner II'
City of Chanhassen
and other agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands
690 Coulter
'
Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen,
MN 55317
RE: SHAMR
CE RIDGE, CITY OF CHA".SSEN, CARVER COUNTY (City ,
#94 -7
SUB, 94 -3 REZ, 9473 WAP)
Dear Mr. Generous:
,
We have reviewed
the site plans (received July 7, 1994) for the
above-referenced
project (SW1 /4, Section 3, T116N -R23W) and have
the following
comments to offer:
,
1. The project
site doesi,not contain, or appear to directly
impacti,
any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands; '
therefore,
no ProtectedlWaters DNR permit is required.
You s
ould be aware that the project may be subject to
federal
'
and local wetland regulations. The Department may
provR
a additional comments on your project through our review
of applications
submitted under these other regulatory
programs.
'
2. The site
does not appear to be within a shoreland or
flood
lain district. ,
aars
3. It pp
that the stormwater is treated in non -DNR protected
P
wetMds.
of stormwater
In general, we are on posed to the primary treatment
in wetlands. Sedimentation/ treatment facilities '
should
be used to protect the wetland from sedimentation and
water
wildlife
level bounces which are detrimental to the basins
values and water quality. The determination of what
is be $t
at this particular site should be addressed by the
city
and other agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands
subject
to the Wetland :Conservation Act. '
4. There
should be some type of easement, covenant or deed
restriction
for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas.
This would
'
help to ensure that property owners are aware that
the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen
have jurisdiction
over the areas and that the wetlands cannot
be altered
without appropriate permits. '
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER '
Mr. Bob Generous
July 18, 1994
Page 2
I 5. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed
developments:
' a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken
during the construction period. The Minnesota
Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
' Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association
of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts)
guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed.
approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
C. If construction activities disturb more than five acres
of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater
permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott
Thompson @ 296 - 7203).
d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of
Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These
' comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack
thereof for a particular project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at
' 772 -7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
' Joe Richter
Hydrologist
c: Minnehaha Creek Watershed, Ellen Sones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann
City of Chanhassen General File
b. If construction
involves dewatering
in excess of 10,000
gallons per day
or 1 million gallons
per year, the
contractor will
need to obtain a
DNR appropriations
permit. You are
advised that
it typically takes
approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
C. If construction activities disturb more than five acres
of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater
permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott
Thompson @ 296 - 7203).
d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of
Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These
' comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack
thereof for a particular project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at
' 772 -7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
' Joe Richter
Hydrologist
c: Minnehaha Creek Watershed, Ellen Sones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann
City of Chanhassen General File
,
■ jC
°§Z'
� §
;|
� | ||
■ ƒ| |
].�
|�!
]
% |
�}
§ !
& ;
)
k §
k
>
�
|q��) ■q
i m
/�£ ;�
� . |
�
�
■ \ F �
i
� B
|
�
!
�
117
|
\
. $
I.
C,
I
***This item has been rescheduled for
Wednesday, August 17
at 7:30 p.m. ***
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, August 3, 1994
at 7:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Shamrock Ridge
Developer: Ed and Mary Ryan
Location: Galpin Boulevard and
Proposed Lake Lucy Road
Extension
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing to rezone 37.92 acres of property zoned RR, Rural
Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat to subdivide 37.92 acres into
52 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit located at the intersection of Galpin
' Boulevard and proposed Lake Lucy Road extension, 6730 Galpin Boulevard, Shamrock
Ridge.
77
LI
r-,
L
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 Bob at 937 -1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will
provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 21, 1994.
Kathy A. Gavin
1851 Lake Lucy Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
Steven & Wendy Lame 1
6651 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Greenery Co./Don Me
C/O Scott Mezzenga
6931 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Brian Klingelhutz, D. Ges
& Leland Paulson
2031 Timberwood Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55331
Kristen A. Struyk
1941 Crestview Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331
John & Mariellen Waldron
1900 Lake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
resh Lynn & Susan Rothberger
6681 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Earl Gilbert III
6901 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
E. Jerome & Linda Carlson
6950 Galpin Lake Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Sam & Nancy Mancino
6620 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Breck & Marliese Johnson
6621 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Martin & Karen Gustafson
6691 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Martin & Beth Kuder
6831 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dennis & Joan Clark
6651 Hazeltine Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Peter & Mary Davis
6640 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92
' ACRES INTO 52 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND
PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED
' AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RIDGE.
Public Present:
' Name Address
' Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay
David Gestach 8001 Acorn Lane
Lee Paulson St. Bonifacius
' John & Mariellen Waldron 1900 Lake Lucy Road
Martin Kuder 6831 Galpin Blvd.
Steve Buresh 6651 Galpin Blvd.
' Peter & Marg Davis 6640 Galpin Lake Road
Sam & Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Questions?
Harberts: I just have a point of discussion. You know I certainly respect the amount of
time that staff and the applicant put on this. I know it takes a lot of work on the staff's time
' and I respect the time that the people have taken to come here to make comments. I feel, I
guess I'm just looking at, in terms of time and good use of time, with all of those issues and
not really having a complete packet. I guess I'm a little concerned about spinning my wheels
because I don't know, I see some of these aren't maybe requirements with regards to lots.
Things like that. I don't know if that's then going to change this drastically and it's gust, I
guess I just don't like spinning my wheels with other things going on with my time. But
anyway, that's just a point of discussion.
Scott: Okay. Can I just ask a question? How many residents are here for this particular
issue? Okay. Well we are scheduled to have a public hearing and we will have a public
hearing.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 '
Aanenson: Can I make a point of clarification?
Scott: Sure. ,
Aanenson: We ! ad the same issue at staff. These are three properties are very, very
complex. The r anon we put it on, even though there's a lot of issues unresolved, we need to
give them some direction... We came forward with our recommendation. There was no
concurrence so 1 ve felt the best thing to do was to put it in front of the public and give them ,
some marching rders so they know so they're not spending their time ... so we are trying to
make that, give them some clear direction on where to go with their plat so that's...
Harberts: That's a good point. Thank you Kate. '
Scott: Okay, g iod. '
Harberts: I still
think I'm spinning my wheels.
,
Scott: Okay. A
ny other questions from the commissioners for staff. Would the applicant
like to make, or
their representative like to make a presentation? Please state your name and
your address.
Chuck Plowman:
My name is Chuck Plowman, the project engineer representing the Ryans.
Mary Ryan is he
re this evening if there are any questions that I am unable to answer. Ed
would have loved
to be here but he was involved in an accident and he's still recuperating so
he's not able to
attend the meeting at this time. Let me start with just a little bit of the
project background.
nd. Lake Lucy Road, can you just put that map up there that shows the
outlot. I'd like
o see the one where Lake Lucy Road ends... specifically to give the Ryans an
opportunity to evaluate
their plat. See what might be most feasible and practical
and ... involved mrith
the properties. So we've been spending the last 3 months going over ,
different plans and
different options and looking at exactly that. So what I'd like, I gave
Dave a copy of
something yesterday which is a modification for a lot of the things that we're
talking about to
'
ight and I think if you could just bear with me, I'll shed some light on a lot
of things involved
with bringing up some major issues. Let me just start with, the initial plat
was submitted,'et
me call it Plan A showing Lake Lucy Road up at the top. Staff told us
that this was no
'
a good plan because of ';the impacts on the environment and the excessive
grade, actual gr�ding
up into the property north of us. So we came back with trying to
address those c
ncerns. We did another plan, without much input from staff but just giving
some, they gav
'
us some direction and we just come up with a second drawing that we
submitted to th4m
prior to the last scheduled meeting that we were going to be on. That
showed Lake Lucy coming right down the center of that corridor. And what I liked about ,
25
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
this one so much was that it was the most sensitive to the environment. ...all the trees along
the north. Gave us long lots this way. Long lots this way. Stayed out of the wetlands. It
was just the most favorable as far as environmentally concerned. It gave us some nice
walkout lots here and some liveable lots here because we've got a lot of room in the back to
do some grading. This was bumped down because staff said that we don't want all of these
driveways connecting to Lake Lucy Road. So that brings us to the plan that we have before
you tonight. This is almost identical to the one in your packet but there was a couple things
done to it to address some issues ... Here we're 60 feet south of the property line with the
beginning of the right -of -way of Lake Lucy Road. That enabled us to construct the road
width along... boulevard and also a 3 to 1 slope and if we do get into the trees, it's very, very
minor. And it also allows us to have two cul -de -sacs, one to the south and some very
desirable lots looking over a wetland. This is what we're really studying the entire plat for
what's economically favorable to the plat and also what's favorable to the environment. So
we've come up with this plan. We are not encroaching on the wetlands. We're not taking
out the trees. We're coming up with a favorable plan for development and we feel this is the
plan that's best. Let me just talk a little bit about this. This is with the Lake Lucy Road
going with this original alignment to the south. With the cul -de -sacs going to the north. We
end up with tuck under lots. Two for sure, possibly more. We end up with destroying
another tree ... because of the elevation of the road. The slope will require some wetland ... so
this one's not favorable from a development standpoint. It is definitely not favorable from
the environment standpoint. Let me just back up a little bit to the staff report. Let me just
talk about Options A, B and C. Option A I believe was the one I just showed you. Option A
was the... Okay, I really just went over that and described to you why that's not a good
choice. Option B, which is the one that we just talked about, which we like. As far as the
location of Lake Lucy Road. Option C is not at all favorable to the Ryan's because it's going
to, this number of lots are going to be getting up here plus they're ready to develop now.
They want to develop now. And initially we had hoped when we started a few months ago,
they were looking only at the alignment and wanting to get some location or connecting point
set. That has changed. They spent the money to have all this work done, and research done
and they've got a different mind set. They do want to develop. They don't want to wait 2
years, 5 years, whatever. So they're here. They're here to get your approval so they can
develop. So Option C is not a good option. And I was understanding it also is not very
good for the future plans for a cul -de -sac to come down into this property through the trees
so that to me would be another reason to not go with that one. Let me just touch on some of
the issues. I know Dave's aware of some of them that I addressed. Things have been
happening so fast. I get a short notice about some things that need attention and then Dave
gets a short time to look at it so again, it's kind of works both ways. The 300 foot spacing
from Galpin Blvd to the first street. The initial thought by staff was that this was going to
have a ripple effect. It's going to change all these intersections. When in fact it didn't. This
intersection moved I figure about more like 100 feet. 110 feet or something like that. But
26
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 '
this one really didn't change all except for that moving over making these lots deeper and
these were ex= sive before so they fit the plan. What we did also with that is, instead of
having, see how the street is moving up and in fact it's going to the right. Once we switch ,
this street over, t was not workable doing it that way. Now we had a previous plan that
showed it coming this way so this is going back to that plan ... Plan B so we kind of referred it
1 d think t k h be W did 1 another lot. N
back to that on phis plan and it works much e did
Generous: 75.
Chuck Plowman: Yeah, so 10 %. We do have the issue of these lots fronting on Lake Lucy
Road. The idea, of private drives is real negative for the same reasons that were mentioned
before because who wants to live with a private drive, even if it's facing out, a private drive
between these Domes is just not good. And we certainly don't want to do that. I guess what ,
I would like to task is that separation would be given a common drive for 2 of them instead of
one for each bause I know the city does allow access to collector roads where there's not a
good alternativ i. I think this is the case. where there is not a good alternative. We've done
27 1
ano er o ow
we're down to
major
19. We're moving in the ;wrong direction. So I guess the effect of the 300
feet was not a
issue, and I know that's ... not only your's but mine. But that
,
wasn't-everything
stayed the same... Along with this reconfiguration right here, the 17 foot
by the way was
also added to Galpin. The wetland setbacks. There was a drafting error on a
couple lots which
showed this pad down (here so it was ... and was obvious that it was too '
close to the we
and but when in fact there is room there so that's not... The storm water
treatment ponding
area was also an issue'and before we turned the configuration things, we
had no choices
where the inlet and outlet was going but since then we reconfigured this,
which allowed us
to construct a pond in this fashion. And also discharging the storm sewer
at this end of th
pond. Outlets at this end of the pond. We have plenty of volume. As you
can see it's quite
large. So we do have an ideal situation with the discharge and the outlets '
being offset into
the pond and that's what Dave was looking for. Something in that fashion.
On the wetlands
itself, can you differentiate between the green and the yellow? Okay, the
yellow is actuary
fill that's going into the wetland. This area is not filled because we're
actually excavating
in here. But wherever fill is taking place, you have to follow rules to
mitigate for that.
shy of being 2 tb
The green areas are mitigation areas. And those areas sum up to a little
1. So we need to confer with Diane about what our options might be. ,
There's no cred�t
given for storm water ponds according to the rules, even though we're
creating wet pods,
it doesn't apply for mitigation. The option I was looking at was ... the cul-
de -sac a little bit.
Reducing the fill so if'is workable because I did ... find where I can do that.
ind
Lower it down
reduce the ... that 2 to I ratio. Time is running short so this is what I came
with. I looked
t the canopy coverage, because that was one of the things that they were
looking for, anc
I count 10 %. So there was an error made by one of the fellows ... came up ,
with, what was
it?
Generous: 75.
Chuck Plowman: Yeah, so 10 %. We do have the issue of these lots fronting on Lake Lucy
Road. The idea, of private drives is real negative for the same reasons that were mentioned
before because who wants to live with a private drive, even if it's facing out, a private drive
between these Domes is just not good. And we certainly don't want to do that. I guess what ,
I would like to task is that separation would be given a common drive for 2 of them instead of
one for each bause I know the city does allow access to collector roads where there's not a
good alternativ i. I think this is the case. where there is not a good alternative. We've done
27 1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
real well in keeping everything off '
p g ryth g o Lake Lucy Road. I thu�lc this is a piece of property that',
' no matter how you slice this up, it happens. You can't get away from it. Again I think I'm
just going to reiterate but I feel this is the best plan. This is the plan we want and we want
you to consider this for approval tonight contrary to what staff is recommending so all the
' actions from here are taken into account with some items I've clarified and addressed. Not to
make it any lighter, I wanted to also mention the fact about the potential of using 50 foot
right -of -ways. Staff discussed with us ... about doing that. I forget which layout we were
' looking at. But the advantage to 50 foot right -of -ways, for example here. We could use the
10 feet and pull this right -of -way in. Along with that we pulled the grading slope 10 feet in.
It's a plus as far as... 60 foot right -of -ways are really something that have been used for many
' years and more and more we're going to 50 because the utilities are now going in a common
trench so we don't need that room we used to have in the boulevards and the easements that
they used to have for gas, telephone and electric. They're all going in one trench so the 50
foot right -of -way's working well. We can live with the 60 but I think if it's possible, we'd
like the 50. I really had no further comments unless there's any other questions, I'd be
happy to answer them.
' Scott: Good. Any questions for the applicant?
' Harberts: Could you just take one more minute and just kind of resummarize why you prefer
the alignment of Lake Lucy? You know your preference as to why again.
' Chuck Plowman: Sure. This location of Lake Lucy Road was pulled away from the north
property line so that we could preserve this tree line along this north property line, and I
know the Mancino's are very concerned about that and... So this location allows us to build a
' road with the boulevard and ... it's very tight but I'm saying we can get ... in here and preserve
the boulevard and save trees. On the other side, we're not encroaching onto the wetland with
' any fill. We do have a nice location here for a treatment pond and discharging runoff before
it goes into the wetland. As far as the talk of there being mass grading, I've been involved
with a few sites that are like this. There's going to be mass grading, I don't care how you
look at it. And it's not a problem. You know we need to be sensitive to the trees. The
wetlands. We can move a lot of dirt. It doesn't cost that much when it comes to developing
land. I mean it's, there's a limit obviously but this isn't a problem as far as, you know if you
move 2 feet of dirt, the tree's gone. If you move 10 feet, the tree's gone. It doesn't make
any difference.
' Harberts: Thank you.
Chuck Plowman: Do you want to hear the reasons why I don't like the other one?
28
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 '
1
Harberts: No. I got those down. I just wanted to again, just make sure I clearly understood
the preference of why on that one. Thank you. ,
Chuck Plowman: Well obviously from a: developer's standpoint, we have lots that we can
sell for a good price. If we put the cul-de -sacs up to the north, we lose lots or value. ,
Scott: Good, any other comments or questions? Good, thank you sir. This is a public
hearing and can I have a motion please. '
Ledvina moved Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened. '
Scott: The public hearing is now open. If you'd like to speak about this particular item,
please step forward and give us your name and your address. Don't all stand up at once. '
Thank you sir.
Steve Buresh: Steve Buresh again from 6651 Galpin Blvd. One small question. Now this is ,
also a proposed approval of a preliminary plat drawing for the area.
Scott: Yeah. i d then a rezone from RR to RSF.
Steve Buresh: light. Well that in fact is what I had the biggest problem with. This
particular asking, for, which I guess has been revised down to 50 now, single family homes, i
may fit in with the residential single family but the residential single family rezone does not
fit in with this area at all. The area is large lot. The lots on Lake Lucy Highlands area are 2
1/2 acres. That 's probably some of the smallest lots in the area. And I think that if we ,
allow it to be subdivided as it is currently, we're totally going to destroy the look of the area.
That's probably something that we want to attain at some point. I think we have to strongly ,
look at the people that are in the area now. What their wants and needs are but also consider
the future obviously. We can't have all this land if it's not going to be developed at some
point in time. That's just not feasible to believe that that can happen. But I guess my
recommendation is not to rezone it as residential single family but in fact keep it as rural
residential and work out some kind of agreement like we've done in the Lake Lucy Highlands
area and I guess I wouldn't see a problem with it being even 1 1/2 acres per lot. This would
fit, still fit in �th the aesthetics of the area and this particular location of this proposed
development is fight in the middle of the' deer migration path. I know in fact because I wake
up every morning and have deer crossing' my property. They go right into this area. This is
going to destroy the wildlife in the area, but I'd like to reiterate that it's just destroys the
aesthetic value of that area. So I strongly recommend that you do not rezone this as
residential singl� family. Thank you.
29 1
' Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
' Scott: Okay. Kate, RSF. 15,000 square foot lots. This is approximately what, averages 20.
' Generous: 22.
Scott: 22, okay. The reason why I brought that up is that, and this has been guided in our
comprehensive plan as a RSF area. What the applicant could have done is put in 15,000
square foot lots and would have met the minimum requirement for lot size in a residential
single family. So we feel that this is preferable. It's beyond what the minimum would be
but your comments are appreciated. I think that development is going to happen and
basically what we see, our position is that we try to get the best that we can for the city and
it's very rare and I think since, in the last 2 years that I've been involved here, I don't think
' that we've put through a development that met the minimums. I don't think we really accept
the minimums. We try to encourage better but no, you're comments are well taken because
you know you're used to a certain type of lifestyle and what we're trying to do is trying to
manage the land use as best we can but they always have to be subject to the ordinances that
we deal with but thank you very much. Would anybody else like to speak at the public
' hearing? Yes sir.
Peter Davis: Yes, I'm Peter Davis, 6640 Galpin Blvd. Could I ask that that map be put back
' up which showed the two different properties. I wanted to speak to several items, specifically
I was encouraged to hear that there is a concern over the aesthetics and the ambience of the
area. We just recently moved into the area. We knew that this development was about to
' take place. What I wanted to point out, and since some of you have started to walk the
property and is generally aware of the aesthetics and what some of the unique features are.
This gentlemen spoke of some of the migratory habits. There are a lot of ecosystems that are
' really coming into play here. Not only the deer but we have snow owls and bat populations.
Pheasant runs that are taking place from across Galpin Lake Road where actually coming up
from other wildlife areas to the northeast coming through this property and out into these
' wetlands and then going and spreading out back across Galpin in both directions. So what I
wanted to point out was the fact there are actually quite a number of different ecosystems,
both plant and wildlife that are going to be impacted by this development with all of the rapid
that has been taking place in Chanhassen. I think it's very important that there's some
considerations being made. We're very encouraged by the Mancino's efforts to set up some
buffer zones and we would like to recommend that you actually consider some of the other
teffects of grading, as I understand it, some of the mitigation land that would enable some of
the protection for these migratory pattems that exist and cutting from the northeast to the
southwest. Secondly I wanted to recommend that from an ambience standpoint in the area,
the use of private drives. We currently share a private drive with the Mancino's that was, has
subject to a lot of easements and what not and are finding that the arrangement to be quite
' workable. We want to encourage some of that kind of development because I think it adds to
30
Planning
Meeting - August 17, 1994
the area. It promotes
somewhat of a lower density which is why we actually chose to move
out to this area.
And lastly I wanted to speak to the nature of the development in terms of
the overall road
'
and density and I wanted, to encourage the city to do anything it could to
accelerate any traffic
work that was going to go on as was mentioned tonight to us earlier
about the light a
TH 5. Since that, there is quite a bit more traffic that is already coming
,
into some of the
developments on the south. Thank you.
Scott: Good, th
ank you. Would anyone lelse like to speak? Yes sir. '
Sam Mancino:
am Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. To get back to a point we made earlier.
We know that d
's ... potential to develop but we would like to revisit this plan for a moment '
because we are
oing to... What I'd like to borrow these for a minute if I could. To remind
you of the confi
;uration of our property. , The lines okay start immediately south of our
property line. And
there's a stand of trees along here that straddles either side of the line on
that property an:
I there's some bluffs here. When we first became aware of the Ryan's intent
to develop, we 1
vent out and tried to understand the impact that that was going to have on us
and understand
t from an access point of view and a utility point of view, from land use '
point of view, and
from conservation and things like that One of the things we had to
understand first,
what was going to go on next to us and what basically was the land use
intent and a lot
of the first things that we found was the original design pushed Lake Lucy '
Road up to the
roperty line. That the intent was to grade basically all the way through the
tree line and on
this site plan that would put that grading about here where our house is. So
that concerned i
s to begin with. Just a little concern. Throughout the process of seeing the ,
plans start to evolve
here, what we've seen is a continual kind of a paradon that was drawn
originally on a
at piece of property but has ultimately translated itself into turning the land
into a flat land.
They're trying to take all of the ground from here and transpose it over on '
this side by grading
all the way up. And I think that what we've heard is just basically to
maximize the number
of lots, which is not our point to comment on other than it does tell us
about the size, to
shape and configuration of that and that it no way is that compatible with '
what we see going
on up here. That we would like to argue against forcing any penetration
at this point because
we think we can access our property through here, ultimately migrate
out through here
... for a connection at this point. We are concerned on a few other things. As
their grading plan
started to evolve, even! heir latest version which pushes the road down 60
feet, still has severe
grading and as their 'engineer has said, we won't lose too many trees here
but as he's also
said, if you grade 2 feet you lose trees anyway. So what we would like to
request is a 30
of easement, conservation easement along here. The consequence of their
grading, any of
he remaining trees on their property, which are indicated through this section ,
and show up on
some of these plans, will all go away. They're not preserving a single tree
that I'm aware
6f in this section of the property so at minimum we'd like to be able to
request that this be a buffer be provided and that we be given an appropriate utility easement '
31 '
' Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
for the lot to the edge of the conservation easement for future access. We also agree with
staff that in their current plan, I'm not sure if it will show it on here but what is shown as
' Lot 10 is an unbuildable lot and they're trying to build some very, very steep retaining walls
and do some severe grading again on the premise that more lots equals more money and I'm
not certain that that's an acceptable premise. It's possible but I'm not sure that I believe that.
And that I think as another by product of this 60 foot piece, if you look at the grades here,
it's probably very doubtful whether they'll be able to grade out and...encroaching on the
' required conservation land. Charles, is there anything that you'd like to add?
Charles Stinson: I'd like to add to if I could. I think a lot of it, Charles Stinson.
' Minnetonka. I think the point being that we're real concerned about anything that happens
across there, just as we're, I thought your comments on the last project were just very good
as far as taking the time to identify really what's happening here because I think just having
' hiked this site and I think the same thing across there and I'd suggest that maybe if
everybody could, it'd be really helpful because I think you can really see how the lay of the
land is and what's going on and how both access. How important it is for the access points
1 here without disturbing the change of topography here as well as down here. That if you
brought the utility lines, the utilities up here and here to the tree zone, we could have access
here. But leaving everything unmolested so to speak, especially the road coming up. One
' thought I had and this isn't I talked to the Mancino's and I'm not having these comments
representing them. They're just my own as a citizen but could you put that back up on the
screen. Just a thought I had is that I believe there's always a winning solution for everybody,
including the land owners and all the neighbors but it always takes a long time to get there. I
think Sam had a great quote from Mark Twain that was, if I had more time I would have
written a shorter letter, and I think it really applies to development. The longer you think
' about it, you can always find a simpler way of doing it than makes everybody happy. But I
think one of the thoughts is, I think one nice thing about having a road at this point was the
' fact that, and I liked the other idea about the road coming up here instead of right here. I
guess I'll do one thing at a time. I think the engineer's idea of coming up here I think was a
good idea. Cul -de -sac this so you don't have a road here and I was dust wondering if you
could do the same thing with that one. Cul -de -sac from here so you don't have anything so
close to the intersection there, just as far as safety to that corner and you're just having the
streets, two openings here. But the thought over here, the nice thing about having a little, and
' just for the citizens driving by as you're looking across the wetland and you're not doing
anything to it and it's kind of a pleasant drive in the midst of a lot of development. The
ideal thing for here would be perhaps some private drives or do some as private drives going
' up here. But the other thought is, I just whispered to the Mancino's to see if they'd be
interested but you know there's a value that you put on on this piece of property that you're
going to get from developing and selling it and if you back out the cost of what it costs for
' the roads and utilities, maybe there's a land value that the Mancino's would just buy from
1 32
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
you and then yob wouldn't have to worry about developing it. I know you still have the
pheasants running around and the deer and everybody'd be happy but I don't know if there's
any, if that's possible to discuss about that but it just seems like there's a lot of development
happening in a small area and that's it.
Sam Mancino: Dne other thing that I'd 'like to add. Throughout this process I've appreciated
the difficulty that staff has gone through in trying to put all these pieces together. They've
worked awfully hard at it. They have made an alternative suggestion about C, about exactly
a variation on their point which is as much as this area relates to development from that site,
given sequencin , yes. This area up here does actually relate more to development but
there's a definit 6 sequencing issue. We have had very little time since the report came out to
think about how C would work. I know this was a sketch but when I actually put the pen
and the ruler on it, we found that our house was actually right here and so we, before we
comment on that we'd like to have a little time to understand the engineering implications of
that kind of a p an. So we'd like to reserve comment on that at this particular time, if that
would be okay.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Okay,
seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please.
Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: Okay, where do I start? Mr. Buresh made some comments as it relates to the
zoning and the done change and I think you made some good points as it related to that but
the other thing that I, another important factor we look at when dealing with zone changes
and looking at the comprehensive plan for how this is developed in the ultimate relates to
how is this goir g to fit in with the other ;parcels and as I look at this parcel, the Shamrock
Ridge, you look at County Road, or Galpin here and in the future that area, or that road will
be a 4 lane roa . So you have that as somewhat of a buffer between the other land use to the
east. And then also I think the developer has done a reasonably good job of orienting the
ponds, etc to provide some open space beyond that to the west before you actually get into
the development area with the lots that are indicated. And even the lots along that side are
fairly large size lots in comparison. They're above the average in size. So we understand the
residents concerns as they relate to transition with density and I think we're trying to do as
good a job as a can as it relates to the ultimate development for this area. So we try to
work that into a.-count. Looking at the staff report and walking the area and kind of getting
a feel for the relationship of this parcel with the other two parcels. This is, they're definitely
33
I.
' Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
all together and really you have to look at how it's going to work. I think the staff is re
g Y Y g g pretty
' close in terms of their ideas on this. I would choose, or I feel that the Lake Lucy Road
alignment as originally proposed by the city along the southern portion of the parcel, is the
best alignment. The other mayor point that staff makes relates to the western 1/3 of the
' property. That essentially that arm west of the wetland area there. That appears to be
premature in terms of the development of this area at this time and I would support that area
being platted as an oudot at this time. I mentioned it with the other plat. I look at this
' extremely steep hill and it's, the views to the south over the wetland are really actually breath
taking. It's a very beautiful area. I can, from my perspective, if I could see this whole area
being graded flat and I don't know, I just can't see what would be gained by that process. So
' I think the road probably has the least impact on the area in it's proposed alignment. I did
have one question for you Bob. As it relates to the tree stand on that western portion. I look
at the tree inventory. I think it's, let's see. Something like 621. Is there 648? Somewhere
' in there. There's quite a few reasonably sized trees. Do you know if those trees will be
saved with the alignment? The proposed alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The city's
alignment. I know, I don't want to put you on the spot but I.
Generous: No, I haven't really...
' Ledvina: Right, right. Well whatever. I think the possibilities of those trees being saved
increase. I don't know for a fact but I think the possibilities increase there so, and that's
something that I'd like to see looked at. I had a question about trails and that recreational
' opportunities. We have a trail proposed along Lake Lucy. Lake Lucy Drive. Is that on the
south side or?
' Generous: North side.
Ledvina: North side, okay. Are we proposing any trail or easement along the west side of
' the wetland area which you've identified as Outlot A? I know in the past we've done a lot of
trails around wetlands and I'm just wondering, this is a pretty large wetland and I don't know
' if there's a good chance or an opportunity to have a trail around there and how that would fit
into our trail needs.
t Generous: I don't believe the Parks Department has looked at that. That's actually on the
Carlson property so that hasn't been proposed with the development. This wetland continues
over to the west.
' Ledvina: Right. Well, continues to the south where Outlot A is, yeah. Just a thought. I
don't know if you would take a look at how that fits into the overall scheme because I know
' in the parcels further to the south towards TH 5, we've got trails that are along our wetlands
34
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 '
there and those a nice amenities and if we could do something like that here, at least get an
easement there, that might make some sense. Let's see. I guess I'm not going to look at a '
lot of the details but I would support the' staff recommendation of generally I think they've
done a good jot of evaluating this and I think that this thing, this plat would need some work
before it could Bally be considered tying, into the overall development of this area. '
Scott: What kir d of direction would you give?
Ledvina: Well, I would give I think, just as I mentioned, I would prefer the feasibility study
alignment. I w uld prefer that the western 1/3 of the parcel be platted as an outlot. And that
area, that very s rep slope area be developed somehow. I know Mr. Mancino mentioned that '
the street goes rght through his house. Obviously we don't want that but maybe there's
another alignme it to the west that might'work there. I definitely think that area should be
served via acce s from the north. And as I look at it, maybe there's a possibility of serving it '
from the east somehow but by private drive as Mr. Stinson has mentioned. So I think those
are the most im ortant things. I generally see a lot of grading that I don't think is necessary
but it's not as tical in the eastern portion of the property as it is on the western portion of '
the property so aybe some, a little more sensitivity can be used in the grading processes if
this is redeveloped.
Scott: Good, Lidd.
Conrad: I ask question of Dave. Is it real clear to you that Lake Lucy Road shouldn't be '
shifted to the north? Is there any solution?
Hempel: I believe the City Council's already made that determination with the approval of... '
on June 13, 1994. They approved the feasibility study and authorized preparation of
construction plans and specifications for Phase 1 which is only up to that intersection of the '
Brenden Pond but the intent is to continue with future phases on the southern realignment.
Conrad: It surer seems like that portion on the western part of this plat relates more to the '
Mancino development than to this one. I support the staff recommendations. I think the
developer shout , has to work. There's obviously a difference of opinion and I think staff
brought up some, a lot of good points. I think they have to be ironed out before it comes '
back.
Scott: Good, Ron. I
Nutting: I also support staff recommendation. The applicant has attempted to address some
of the issues tonight. I need to see staff's response to those items before responding to them. '
35 t
n
t
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
I can't act in a vacuum and so I would support tabling this application and addressing it. It
also, when you've got a key issue with just the southerly versus the northerly route of the
road and it seems to, it appears from what was said here tonight that the southerly route is
somewhat cast in.
Aanenson: I don't want to differ with Dave but the Council did, they did leave an option on
the Gestach- Paulson piece. That Outlot A that showed a portion over to the south so in
deference to what the Ryan's are trying to do. There was some flexibility. We know it has
to touch down on a certain point on Galpin Boulevard. There were two proposals shown. A
northerly and southerly one in the original, in the original Lake Lucy alignment. A northerly
and southerly alignment and they gave feasibility for the supplementary phase, they left the
option out whether it goes to the north or to the south so I think their response that they were
trying to decide what works best for them and they pushed it to the north. That's what they
originally came in with. And we said it just didn't work because they're grading into the
Mancino's property... Then we started moving up and down the property trying to figure out
where it works best. And going back to what Matt said, you can see the dilemma we were
in. Throwing out property lines. You just look at, how should this property best be served.
That's what we came up with and that's, the problem is that the property lines don't follow
the natural topography and as Mr. Plowman indicated, once you ... 2 feet, what's the difference.
Well that's the problem. There are some unique natural features there that we're trying our
best to try to maintain. And it's not a flat, square piece of property that you can lot out
15,000 square foot lots. It's got some unique features but they will respond to the option of,
there are two options showed in the—study for Lake Lucy. One to the north and one south so
that's what they were responding to and I just want to make sure that that was clear. And
that's what we were asking your direction to give to them. Do you want to go to the north or
to the south and our preference was, to keep it south. That's what...keep it towards the
middle.
Nutting: The impact if it was to the north on the previous applicant's proposal, just looking
back at that. Do you have any drawings? If the road was to the north.
Hempel: I'm sorry, which development?
Aanenson: The Ryan's?
Scott: Gestach?
Nutting: No.
' Scott: Gestach- Paulson?
36
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
Nutting: Paulso�.
Aanenson: Y
Generous: You d have lots on the south :side of the Lake Lucy Road and on the north side of
Lake Lucy Roa .
Aanenson: Streot front facing lots.
Nutting: Okay. So you'd have the issue of private drive.
Aanenson: Fro t facing lots on a collector street, yeah. Right.
Nutting: I guess I would concur with staff's recommendation and Matt's observations as well
in terms of the southerly route so I don't; have any other comments.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I wo Id move that the Planning Commission table Case #94 -7 SUB, is that right?
Scott: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay The Shamrock Ridge subdivision plan.
w to table 94 -3 and then the rezoning and the wetland alteration permit?
Scott: Do a eed g Pe
Okay, why don 7t you add that.
Ledvina: And I would add those under the items as well.
Scott: Good. Can I have a second?
Conrad:
Scott: It's bee moved and seconded that we table the issue. Or all three of them. Is there
any discussion.
Ledvina move , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on
Subdivision ;1-7, Rezoning #94 -3 and Wetland Alteration Permit #94 -3. All voted in
favor and the otion carried.
37
1 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
IScott: Oka thank you all for Okay, y o coming.
J
38
HARLES W. PLOWE, CONSULTING ENGINEER
9180 LEXINGTON AVE, N.E. CIRCLE PINES, MN 55014
(612) 785 -1043 FAX 786 -6007
August 26,
Bob Generous, Planner II
City of Chanh ssen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: SHAMROCK RIDGE
PRELIMI ARY PLAT- single family residential
Dear Mr. Generous,
Enclosed are �opies of the revised preliminary plat drawings for your review.
As we have discussed the alignment of Lake Lucy Road at the west end of
Shamrock Ridge has not been changed from the northerly locations as shown on
the previously submitted preliminary plat.
The southerly alignment (option 1 of the feasibility report dated May 25,
1994) does not allow development of the westerly portion of Shamrock Ridge in
a practical nanner. To develop cuidesac lots off of Lake Lucy Road with the
southerly alignment would result in significant loss of trees along the north
property line, require retaining wall construction and provide tuck under type
lots of lower value than walkout lots overlooking the treed wetland area.
In addition, some wetland fill would occur to construct Lake Lucy Road along
the wetland.
We feel the northerly alignment (option 2 of the feasibility report), as
modified to sixty feet south of the north property line, is the location
needed to provide a more feasible lot layout and reduces environmental impacts
by preserving trees and avoiding wetland fill.
We have made revisions and additions to the attached preliminary plans to
address the i ems in your staff report.
Please call me with any questions or comments regarding the above.
Charles W. Pl�we, P.E.
CWP /zs
enc.
cc: Ed & Mary Ryan
i
i
J
I �
I �
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
' FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer .�
' DATE: August 31 1994
g ,
SUBJ: Updated Preliminary Plat Review for Shamrock Ridge
File No. 94 -18 Land Use Review
Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings stamped "August 8, 1994 ", revised August 25,
1994 and prepared by Charles W. Plowe Consulting Engineer, we offer the following comments:
WETLANDS
' According to the wetland delineation performed by Arlig Environmental, Inc. three wetlands have
been identified on -site and they are described as follows:
Basin 1 is the large wetland located" on the western bounda ry, " of the site. The wetland extends
off -site to the west; approximately 4.7 acres of wetland is on -site. The wetland is classified as
' a natural wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance.
Basin 2 is located along the eastern edge of.the property. ;.The wetland is approximately 0.8 acre
' in size. The wetland is classified as ag /urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. It appears
that this basin will be eliminated and converted into a stormwater treatment pond as a result of
the proposed development and the extension of Lake Lucy Road., As a result, the area filled will % ' require mitigation. 'Tile Army Corps of Engineers Will require mitigation for rill and excavation
at a ratio of 1:1. However, in accordance to state and local regulations, a ratio of 2:1 is required.
Basin 3 is located in the southeastern corner of the site. The wetland extends off -site to the
south; approximately 0.4 acre of wetland is on -site. This wetland is part of a wetland complex
and it drains south into Basin 1. The wetland is classified as ag /urban under the City's Wetland
Ordinance.
1
Bob Generous
August 31, 19
Page 2
Regulations
A replacement
Wetland City i
the replacemei
wetland deline
sheet for each
will also requi
for their requij
The WCA and
wetland replacf
been removed
ratio of 1:1 in
wetland bank ii
to purchase bs
replacement sh
adjacent to a h
The WCA was
prudent. Alter
alteration perm
plan will be required as part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and
rdinance (CWO) requirements. The City administers the WCA. In addition to
plan requirements, staff would like the following information as part of the
ion report: a map with the locations of the wetland data points, at least one data
etland identifying upland; and a map of the soils. The Army Corps of Engineers
a permit application for the alteration of wetlands. They should be contacted
he CWO require a wetland replacement ratio of 2:1 for wetlands filled. The
nent plan should be designed to meet the existing functions and values that have
> a result of filling in other wetlands. It is possible to replace the wetlands at a
rpland and a ratio of 1:1 as wetland restoration. The City is going to start a
the near future by restoring wetlands that have been drained. It may be possible
ling points as part of the mitigation for this site. Staff thinks that wetland
uld occur in the large wetland to the west rather than creating a small wedand
ge stormwater pond.
tten to replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible or
ies for avoiding wetland impacts should be considered as part of the wetland
process.
In addition, to the requirements of the WCA, the CWO 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 setba4 is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. The proposed
grading plan wi, l have to show the buffer strip and the appropriate house setbacks.
The City has p.
serve as a tool
stormwater qua
future develop.
general, the wa
and a 10 -year d
uses William I
water bodies. ,
projected futur
were analyzed
;pared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will
to protect, preserve, and; enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the
itity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow
lent to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In
;r quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding
sign storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan
alker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow
n ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on
land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development
determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
C
L
Bob Generous
' August 31, 1994
Page 3
' In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the
applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre - developed and post developed drainage areas
' along with runoff calculations for pre - developed and post - developed conditions. Storm water
runoff from the site shall maintain the pre - developed conditions for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm
duration. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker
' Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2.5 -inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and
calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. The grading plan
shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for
' both pre- developed and post - developed conditions.
' Water Quality
The SWMP has established a user fee aR aOeSffient Fate for water quality systems. The cash
dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the
phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction
shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are
calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per
' cubic yard for excavation of the pond. If the applicant is- prepeses -te constructs the water quality
basins, these fees will be waived and credit given for any oveisizing.
' Water Quantity
The SWMP has established a user fee 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 as-
' sessment fee of $63,360 assuming 32 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. The exact fees will be determined after final review and approval of the construction plans
and specifications and Lake Lucy Road assessment methodology if applicable.
1 DRAINAGE
The development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed. The SWMP should be reviewed
by the applicant's engineer and the site designed in accordance with the SWAP design to the
extent feasibly possible. All runoff shall be pretreated before discharge to any of the existing
' wetlands. Similar to Brenden Pond, Lake Lucy Road will intersect this parcel. The applicant's
plans have included a segment of Lake Lucy Road; however, it does not correspond to the City's
feasibility study. The Lake Lucy Road alignment is shifted northerly to facilitate two cul -de -sacs
on the south side of Lake Lucy Road adjacent to wetlands. A storm water retention pond to
pretreat runoff from the cul -de -sacs. and part of Lake Lucy Road is proposed adjacent to the
Bob Generous
August 31, 19�
Page 4
wetland. Anot Ier storm water treatment pond is proposed adjacent to Galpin Boulevard lying
both north and south of Lake Lucy Road'!. Staff has mcommended to the applicant's engineer to
delete the southerly pond and extend storm sewer to the existing culvert underneath Galpin
Boulevard. Th,� pl—ans; p-repose on the in!& and outlet disehafge points of the storm seweF system
Depending on - he applicant's timing, they may petition the City, similar to the Brenden Ponds
developer, for he construction of Lake Lucy Road through the parcel. This would be a 429
public improvement project whereby the drainage, utility and street improvements would be
partially assess d back to the benefitting property owners. This alignment is also a State -Aid
route where State-Aid funding may play a role to assist in the funding on the project.
Unfortunately, state aid funds have been encumbered for the next three years. Another option
would be for the applicant to construct the entire segment of Lake Lucy Road and be given credit
for oversizing any utility lines and creditfor the trail system along Lake Lucy Road. According
to the City's SN IMP, three storm water pretreatment ponds (Walker ponds) are proposed on the
site. One is located just east of Galpin ,Boulevard at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and
The e-t e� tv ;e ere
Galpin Boulevard. Another one is located just northerly of the wetland areas.
The applicant has proposed constructing 'lire two of the three ponding areas. ' SWMP also
proposes a thi water quality basin at ;the end of the ravine in the southwest corner of this
development aind extends westerly into B'renden Pond. It may be feasible to consider combining
the proposed pond between Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay with the proposed SWMP pond in
the southwest comer and Brenden Pond.; 'Ibis area then could be utilized as a mitigation area.
The applicant may be given credit for the oversizing of the storm water treatment ponds and any
trunk storm sewer facilities they install in conjunction with the overall development. This will
be further revie ed upon the final plat and construction plan and specification review process.
Staff encourages the applicant's engineer'to review the City's SWMP plan for appropriate sizing
of the ponding areas and trunk storm sewers. The storm ponds should be designed with access
in mind. A 4:1 side slope is required along /over the storm pipe which discharges into the pond.
The pond shout be designed and constructed with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL)
for the first one foot (depth) of water and the remaining at 3:1. Another alternative would be to
design the pond with 4 :1 slopes overall.
GRADING
The site contai .
ravine area. TI
types of slopes
grading. Staff 1
be a more feasi
if the parcel to
is very steep slopes in the northwesterly portion of the site as well as a small
e slopes along the northerly portion are in the range of 20% to 30 %. With these
it is very difficult to prepare a site for streets and house pads without significant
ias reviewed the plan and has prepared a few options with what we believe would
ale approach to developing the steeper part of the site (westerly 1/3). We believe
he north (Mancino) was to develop prior to this development we would require
I� 1
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page S
that a street be extended to the northerly line of this plat for a future cul -de -sac to extend lots
off of this high ridge. This would make use of the existing topographic features of the property
' without substantially altering the grades. This would also allow for Lake Lucy Road to be
extended along the southerly portion of the site to maintain a sufficient buffer and setback below
the proposed homes along the northerly portion of the development. It would also allow for
' sufficient wetland mitigation and storm water treatment ponds adjacent to the wetland. One of
the drawbacks with regards to this approach would be the lack of benefit that this development
would receive from Lake Lucy Road. It is the City's intent to partially assess the benefitting
properties for the construction of Lake Lucy Road; however, in this segment where no direct
benefit is received the City would have difficulty assessing a portion of Lake Lucy Road.
However, the City may does have alternative financing methods such as State Aid to assist in
' developing the roadway system. Unfortunately, these funds are encumbered for the next three
years.
' The grading plan as proposed with the Lake Lucy roadway alignment to the north has very steep
backslopes (2.5:1) adjacent to the ^ r-b .,.high are of areeptable. The City's typical street section
' requires a boulevard area and then 3:1 slopes. In addition, this alignment will not match with
the development to the west (Brenden Pond). Staff has been woiiang with the applicant's
engineer in realigning Lake Lucy Road to match to the west and provide appropriate boulevards
and backslopes. This appears achievable by slightly curving Lake Lucy Road southwesterly and
shifting the street south by approximately 20 feet The southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road
is still preferred by staff. The ^ plie . ; „ 34 slepe .immediately L.,,hind the ^ ._r.
' Thi ' •vill ~^* allow for- The proposed 8 -foot wide bike trail along the north side of the road may
be realigned to assist in improving the side slopes as well. The use of retaining walls may also
be employed to lessen the grading impacts; however, if this is done as a part of the City project
' it will increase costs significantly for the construction of these retaining walls and limit future
street widening if so desired. The applicant is also proposing three lots to access off of Lake
Lucy Road immediately across from Mary Bay Court. Staff believes that Lot 14 4-9 is an
unbuildable lot due to the steepness of the grades and proximity of Lake Lucy Road. Lots 12
& and 13 9 may be serviced off a private driveway off of James Court which would modify the
house design from a tuck -under which is not desirable to a walkout which is more valuable.
Staff is also recommending extending a street stub north towards the Mancino's from James
Court The street could terminate at a point short of the tree line which would provide access
to the last lot (9) and future extension to Mancino's if desired.
The applicant is proposing water quality ponds adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. Galpin Boulevard
is classified as a local collector street and will need additional right -of -way dedicated with this
' plat. According to Carver County, a minimum corridor of 100 feet should be reserved for future
upgrading to a four -lane street. T4erefer- , it i - The applicant is to dedicating an
additional 17 feet of right -of -way along Galpin Boulevard to fulfill the County's requirement.
ha _Additien, the first inteFseetien west ef Galpin Boulevard is too elose fr-ein a spaeing standpoint_.
Bob Generous
August 31, 199
Page 6
City's des4a
300 feet. This iifitMeOtiOR is apl)FO-Xifflately 190 feet ffem Galpin
The
T-
standards afe
is distanee for- tuming vehieles onto Galpin
Boulevard.
St
YAll net pr-evide enough staeking
ff the the inter-seetion to be 300 feet from the
Boulevard.
Feeommends appli�ant redesign
Galpin Boulevard. Thi�- demino effeet to the etheF tWE)
eentef line of
—AI-,;A- play a
Way Mafy Bay). This will signifieantly alter- the
inter-seetions to
the west (jennifeF �and plat
tabling to the r-amifieatiens from these majer-
design and theFefor-e
ehanges.
The backyard Irainage
should r-eeemmend see
from Lots 19 through 30, Block 1 will be directed to a wetland located
in the southea
constructed pnor
lots are revegetated.
t corner of the site. Staff recommends that an interim sediment pond be
to runoff entering the wetland. The sediment pond may be removed once the
Staff is concerned
about the grading behind Lots 4 through 8, Block 2. The proposed grade
directs runoff extremely
close to the house pad on Lot 4, Block 2. Staff has recommended to
the applicant's engineer
that this needs to be revised to promote a rearyard to front yard drainage
pattern.
benning landseaping
be County Read 117- and Lake Luey Road.
and
befining
will required along
I be outside the City and County right of way are
should
UTILITIES
As part of the
pity's Lake Lucy Road extension, the utilities will be brought to the intersection
of proposed Pend
View Court and Lake Lucy Road approximately 400 feet west of this
development. Utilities
will be a gap between
are proposed to be extended along Lake Lucy Road. However, since there
the plats, it will be necessary for the City and/or developer to extend Lake
Lucy Road to service
Depending
this development. Without that project, this development is premature.
final layout, the City the appheant to extend utilities to th
on t1ie
Maneine
stFeet
but this is dependant on the street OOHfigWatioHS to seFV-r-.p
paFeel-te
the north, again al
Staff has reviewed the access
and utility setvi
extension of utilities
potentially serve
a needs to the Mancino parcel and believes it is prudent, at this time, to require
and street access north along James Court (through Lot 9, Block 2) to
a portion of Mancino's.,
The existing home
house should be
operational. The
on Lot 14 34, Block 3 (Ryan's) is currently on a septic and well system. The
connected to the new sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes
well may be utilized as, long as it is on the same lot and functioning properly.
n
n
r
F- 1
n
I
Bob Generous
' August 31, 1994
Page 7
' Once the well fails or the property owner sells, the property shall be required to connect to city
water per city ordinance.
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 all the nm wetlands being preserved. 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. 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.
STREETS
' Access to the development is proposed from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Another
access will also be extended from the west if the City continues with the extension of Lake Lucy
' Road. Lake Lucy Road may be built under the City's improvement project program if so
petitioned by the applicant and authorized by the City Council. 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. Staff believes that
Lot 14 4-9, Block 2 located north of Lake Lucy Road, is not a buildable lot; however, Lots 12
9 and 13 -3, Block 2 should have a driveway access from James Court which would eliminate any
driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff believes this is a feasible alternative to having
direct access on to Lake Lucy Road and should be required as a Condition of Approval.
The alignment of Lake Lucy Road west of this development has not been finalized. The City
has prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41
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 is located just west of this development and
proceeding ahead with a preliminary plat (Gestach parcel - Brenden Ponds). The other parcel
(Mancino) is located to the north of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property
owners several options for access to the Mancino parcel from the Brenden Pond development and
' this development. Brenden Pond will be providing the Mancino parcel access to the westerly
portion via private driveway. Staff has also met with the Ryans to discuss two potential
alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact this development. There is no clear -cut alignment
of Lake Lucy Road that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation. The preliminary plat
of Shamrock Ridge has utilized a northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through their parcel.
Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and finds numerous problems from a design standpoint
which will have to be resolved, which may or may not thus potentially reduce the number of lots.
The applicant's engineer will be supplying staff with a revised plat that addresses most of these
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 8
problems. Staf
has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through this parcel
which leaves the
westerly portion of the; very difficult to develop due to very steep slopes.
However, this
alignment works well with the existing terrain and minimizes impacts to the
wetlands. The
esulting impact from thei'southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road requires short,
steep cul -de -sa
s as well as tuck -under type homes to the north of Lake Lucy Road unless access
is from the no
(Mancinos). Staff hits put together- thFee options that we see feasible fe-F
. still believes that the
ent is the preferred alignment for Lake Lucy Road. The proposed plan at this
southerly align
time still nee
some minor alignment changes in order to achieve 3:1 backslopes along Lake
Lucy Road and
match the touchdown port on Brenden Pond (Gestach Paulson). The applicant's
engineer and C i
ty staff believe this can be accomplished if the northerly alignment is acceptable
to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
The applicant is
proposing to dedicate an 80 -foot wide right -of -way for the construction of Lake
Lucy Road thrc
ugh the development. The plans also propose a 60 -foot wide right -of -way on all
the streets except
for Mary Bay and Gwendolen Court; and construction of the City's standard
roadway sectio:
i for the interior streets. The right-of-way for Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay
shall be widene�
to 60 feet vs. 50 feet unless the applicant can demonstrate some benefits to the
City. 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. Show Access to the Mancino parcel shall be provided by extending
Jennifer Way to
the north side -ed through the n^4" end of James Court through Lot 9, Block
Z,
and conditions stipulated in
the developme
�t contract that this street may be extended in the future. Staff also recommends
that if
' , the sheet north/south portion of
James Court name
street e Maneines.
should be changed to Jennifer Way. m ^aifi °a one assigned f f stub
Fellews City's feasibility -ading and tr-ee less adjae
This
alignment
the study whieh
through the ]R!, ;an This se alleves for- two options te evit—I
to the wetlands
parvel.� alignment
the stFeet
jr—_
f
development the a4though street in this alignment may
the
estaeh along Favine, gFades
0
be to Ptpmd�RAnd View Court to the neftheastedy eerner. oi the
to aeeess
Gestaeh
IP--*--Fe This is less de, involves some tr-ee 1
d
aeeess. acee6s mueh
—'.on the h—AQ leaded lots in the Maneine's The
An.
of r-avifle. —And single par-eel.
Pi
IF_
u
1
Bob Generous
' August 31, 1994
Page 9
The Lake Luey Read alignmeni is not eendueive mith the Ryan's pr-epesed plat. This eptien
leaves the Ryan paf eel to develep %ith raul de saes ne#h ef Lake Luey Read Whieh will involve
would be to delay dev!!epfne!t ef these nefthef4y oul de saes until the Maneines develop ftem
the aeFth. Aeeess to this area is fner-e eendeeive ftem the nefth in order- to situate hemes on top
„owe
City's This A gnment is sondueive to the Ryan's ffefifninuy pla altbeugh the Ryan's pFelifniamy plat
ineasur-es and ster-m pending issues,
Option B Cons
This Feadway alignment does not fellew the
Lake Luey :-R--A-W� fiffther- ROFth FeSUIfiRg in steep slopes along the ner4h side of Lake Luey R
and m hieh YAII signifieantly alter- the erisfing terrain. This option %ill alse.1
-A Ow. 9-. P-I -Q -Q- t- A- Z.- -e :-Nl 4--A-aeine pareel fiefn the extension of Pend IA-emIx Outlet A, Dr-enden Pend
will have lets aeeessing Lake Luey Read. This eptien may alse r-equi the Manein
via james CeuFt 4em the Ryan's plat,
*ion C _ D....s /See A fine ment JJ21
This a4ignment fellews the City's feasibility study. This Agnment Yvill a4se maintain the erdsting
flexibility te the Maneine par-eel
This eptien wou d delay development of the westerly pef4ien ef the Ryan's pim until aee
Conclusion
Staff has reviewed this plat submittal and still believes that the southerly alignment (Lake Lucy
Road) should be followed. However, as a compromise, staff would be open to a northerly Lake
' Lucy Road alignment if the applicant can provide for 3:1 side slopes outside the fight-of-way and
revise Lake Lucy Road to match with the intersection proposed in Brenden Pond. In addition,
1
�I
_J
Bob Generous
ED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUI%U"RV OF ISSUES AND RFAILSIONS.
August 31, 199
shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year
Page 10
and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality /quantity ponds in
accordance
with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
the plat should
revised to extend Jennifer Way to the north through Lot 9, Block 2 to provide
access to the M
cino parcel. .
This leaves dev
lopment flexibility to the Mancino parcel and still allows both parcels (Brenden '
Pond and Ryan)
to develop. Staff believes it is an appropriate way to develop the westerly one -
third of the Ryai
development by accessing from Mancinos. Due to steep grades, we believe that
this site should
be accessed from the north to retain 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 Rylans
to provide access to the 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
1r
and property owners
Zxan
to make a development proposal which utilizes the existing topography.
plat needs to go baek and be substantially Fewer-ked due to inter-seetien
addition, the
RECOMMEND
ED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUI%U"RV OF ISSUES AND RFAILSIONS.
1. The applicant
shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year
storm events
and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality /quantity ponds in
accordance
with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review
and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post-
developed
stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events. Normal water level and
high wa
er level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations
between
each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch '
basins are
being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be
based on
Walker's Pondnet model.
,
2. The p ro
osed development will be responsible for a water quantity user assn fee
of $63,360
assuming 32 acres of developable land. Water quantity and quality fees may
or may
not be assessed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road improvement project '
assessment
methodology. assessments will be waived if the .,ppli, ant ,. „s+,.,,,,ts_,,,,_on site
These fees will be negotiated based on the developers
contribu
ion to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality
are pen,
ling formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any
modifications
to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat.
'
3. The applicant
h i Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during
shall report tot e C ty En i g g
construction.
Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer.
4. The existing
outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned
in accor
ance with City and/or State codes. The existing house on Lot 14, Block 3 shall
be con4cted
to the new sanitary sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes
I.
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 11
available. The well may be utilized as long as the well is on the lot and functional.
' Once the well fails or the property is sold the property owner shall connect to city water.
5. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The
' minimum easement width should be 20 feet. Maintenance access to the ponding areas
shall be provided. Slopes shall not exceed 4:1 over the easement areas.
' 6. The applicant will be required to 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.
7. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal
approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration.
' 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed
District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies
' and comply with their conditions of approval.
9. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc-
' mulched or wood -fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All
erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice
' Handbook.
10. 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.
11. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and
will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The proposed buffer strip shall be shown on the
grading plan.
' 12. The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans,
wetland delineation report, a map with wetland data points, at least one data sheet for
each wetland identifying upland areas and a map of the soils.
Bob Generous ,
August 31, 199
Page 12 ,
13. The existing home shall change its address to be compatible with the City's addressing
system once the street has been constructed adjacent the house. ,
14. The grading plan shall be revised as follows: to 1) provide for 2% boulevards and 3:1 ,
side slops adjacent to all streets ;,in accordance to the City's typical street standards; 2)
bermingl shall be prohibited from:all street right -of -ways; 3) the proposed pond between
Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay 'shall be combined/relocated to the west of Gwendolen
Court; 4) grading in the rearyards of Lots 4 through 8, Block 2 shall be revised to drain ,
rear to front; 5) an interim sediment pond shall be provided on Lot 12, Block 3 until Lots
1 through 12, Block 3 are fully revegetated; 6) storm ponds shall be designed and ,
constructed with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL) for the first one foot
(depth) of water and then 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 slopes overall.
15. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet State -Aid standards. T#e i
-hall be spaeed a fainimum ef 300 feet apaA along Lake Luey Read ift
aecer-danee to City design standa�ds.
16. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon utilities being extended from
Brenden� Pond unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for review and
approval.
17. Lake Ucy Road shall be realigned southerly to be compatible with the intersection '
proposed in Brenden Pond (Lake!'Lucy Road and Pondview Court).
18. Right-of.way for Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay shall be increased to 60 feet. ,
19. The ap licant shall provide potential street access and utility service to the Mancino
parcel b extending Jennifer Way north of Lake Lucy Road through Lot 9, Block 2. ,
20. Direct driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road shall be prohibited. A private driveway
shall be required to access Lots'. 12, 13, and 14, Block 2 in accordance to the City's ,
private driveway ordinance.
ktm /j ms
2. Option -&
c: Charles olch, City Engineer. '
gAeng\diane\pIanning\shan irock.pc I
O. r► ` ;z� � } t
o o v �4�Z
oG O
' `fl\90 OHO
6j€ , s A :a
-
� a pttt e,
� ,n, uc � nr sr ,i. a x s. •i. r src � ma •n � j �^ > ` ua � � 04
y
a
�r
•� � � . _ -�_ 4` '.b �- ,� ISM -\ _""�± °'�y� I 1 -
�i . iN � •two I 3 � E 8 > ` tt'" � � y ti"' � ,�i,.,a. y r _ � i /�
1 1
i� 990 -x. -a.. ''�► -:j i L_ yam. �'
fy
v` 1 � - ..., - :r, _ +- � i •471 � .�� y
s� �O
'- _`Waal, i -Km r- .•moo - � � ,�' i`'•..�. %
98
Wg
I S �32G �0 E
000 .,
r T
-,
to
CHANHASSENN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
Chairman Scott (called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino and Ron
Nutting
MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts and Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRES T: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; Bob
Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, ;Asst. City Engineer
(Nancy Mancind removed herself from the Planning Commission for the first two items on
the agenda due to conflict of interest.)
d
Public Present:
David Struyk
David Stockdah
Martin Gustafsc
Lynn Rothberge
Chuck Plowe
Frank Kelly
Sam & Nancy 1
Charles R. Stin
Clarke Nickolsc
Eric M. Rivkin
Mark Williams
Peter A. Davis
Debbi & Neal I
Jerome Carlson
Bob Generous
1941 Crestview Circle
7210 Galpin Blvd.
6691 Galpin Blvd.
6681 Galpin Blvd.
2725 94th Avenue No, Brooklyn Park
351 2nd Street, Excelsior
6620 Galpin Blvd.
Architect, Minnetonka
2051 Crestview Drive
1695 Steller Court
1655 Lake Lucy Road
6640 Galpin Blvd.
7011 Galpin Blvd.
6950 Galpin Blvd.
the staff report on this item
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Scott: Questions for staff.
Ledvina: Bob, what led you to change your opinion as it related to the Lake Lucy alignment?
What now makes this an acceptable proposal in terms of the alignment?
' Generous: It's the best we can get. Since they're not willing to go along with, the preferred
development pattern would be to outlot that property but you cannot force them to do that
' provided they provide us with a feasible alternative. This way they at least leave in some of
the topography whereas if they go in and have the southern alignment, they're going to ... so
they can put their housing pads in and then we'll either have large retaining walls on that side
or a steep slope there.
J
LI
Aanenson: If I could just expand upon that. The intent was always to preserve the natural
topography as much as possible and our first choice would be to ... property to the north. ...so
this way we felt, at least we're getting preservation of that area by swinging the road to the
south. Whatever you need to maintain the 3:1 slopes, that would give you the preservation
area along the northern boundary ... So if they would be willing to wait until that did change,
that would be the best way to do that but we can't force the issue.
Generous: And we couldn't persuade them.
Ledvina: Okay, thank you.
Scott: I'm just taking a look at some of the preliminary grading plan and my big concern is
we just had sent on a bluff protection ordinance and from visiting the site and from viewing
this, it appears to me that there are some steep grades that fall within our bluff ordinance here
and that's, I didn't go out and measure them but I'm going to need somebody to tell me that
they have been measured and they don't, the bluff ordinance does not apply to the northerly
section of this property.
Generous: I did a cursory review. I did not measure all of it and at least the places where
I ... it didn't meet the ... It has the elevation change but not the slopes.
Scott: Okay. Questions? Comments? Would the applicant or their representative wish to
make some comments? If yes, please identify yourself and give us your name and your
address.
Ed Ryan: My name is Ed Ryan and I'm the owner - developer of the property. And my wife
Mary. I'm sorry I missed the last meeting. I had an accident on my property which I'm
recovering from now and that's why I missed the last meeting so I apologize for that. Mary
Oa
Planning Co i, ssion Meeting - September 7, 1994
LJ
and I have taker
great care in developing our property. I mean we've been in Chanhassen for
many years. W
appreciate our property ivery much. And in working with staff and
suggestions from
our neighbors, during this whole process we've been focusing on a number
of issues when
we put our plans together; which have been revised many times. Tree
preservation has
always been a concern of our's, especially up along the north line. We have, ,
from the original
proposal that we had a few weeks ago, we have dropped the road significant
to the south to accommodate
those grades and the sloping of the road. We've also in our
proposal have tried
to preserve the wetlands to the south. That whole wetland in there is a ,
natural wetland
and by having the road to the north we don't do any disturbing of that
roadway during
the building process or the grading process so we felt that was important.
We have large lot
sizes and we tried to preserve the rolling topography of our property. It's '
a beautiful piece.
Mr. Chair, I think you've seen it. It's very pretty, rolling type farm
acreage. It has
significant trees to the north and it has trees, significant concentration of trees
in front of our property
which we have preserved. We've also tried to take into account how
Lake Lucy current
is. This is going to be an extension of Lake Lucy and if you drive Lake
Lucy from Pow
rs to Galpin, you'll notice how that road curves and winds sort of gently and
it rolls with the
opography. It's not flat.'... It's not straight. That kind of roadway would be I
think a disturbar
ce to the neighborhood so I think this plan accommodates that. As the staff
has outlined, they
ould recommend approval of our plat, which would include the northern
alignment if we
would agree to all their recommendations. Chuck, our engineer, will be '
addressing some
of those issues after I speak and we have met those or in the process of
meeting all of those
conditions. Still though we find that there is I think some general
confusion regarding
this whole city original feasibility study. And I think through the process ,
that we've gone
through, we feel that the! original feasibility study that was addressed, it takes
on a different light.
ht. The study was prepared by Bill Engelhardt, as you know, and he's an
independent consultant.
An engineer that was asked to design a roadway from TH 41 to the
touchdown spot
where Lake Lucy is now. That's what he was asked to do. Now Bill was
not charged wi
developing a developable plan for the western property or for our property.
He wasn't asket
'
to do that. He was asked to find a way to connect these two. And he did
so, and he did a
fine job. However, as the western plat developed, this alignment changed
and the reason i
changed is because ownership changed with that western section. And so ,
the road had to
be configured. Had to be changed. There were some modifications there.
The original fear
ibility study was reviewed by the City Council on June 13th. And at that
meeting the sole
southern alignment proposed for the property was changed to include the ,
northern alignment.
This was called the 'supplemental feasibility study. That's what was
approved by the
City Council. At the Council meeting the city approved the study. Not the
original feasibility
study which showed al northern route and a southern route. And it ,
outlotted the eastern
section of the western development so that, in their words, this will give
maximum flexibility
to the Ryans when their property would come to be platted. This is the
history of that f
asibility study. I'm sure. Bill did a fine job but he did not have a ,
Planning Commission Meeting - September -7, 1994
development in mind. He couldn't have. And we have. And with that development we've
' taken input from staff and our neighbors and other input to try to accommodate and make it a
pleaseable plat and a nice development. Chuck, our engineer will share with you why the
northern alignment is preferred. We feel it's preferred. And let me turn the podium over to
' him.
Scott: Okay, thank you.
' Chuck Plowe: Mr. Chair, fellow members of the Commission, my name is Chuck Plowe and
I'm the project engineer for Shamrock here representing Mr. and Mrs. Ryan. Do you want
this just out front?
Scott: I think you put that right in front of the podium or over to the side.
Chuck Plowe: Allow me to hand out something that I J otted down in writing in regards to
the reasons for the alignment that we prefer. Anyone else that wants copies, you're welcome
to grab one. I think most of this has been covered in some fashion or another in this report
but let me Just reiterate a little bit, and basically I've put down something in writing that I
believe I've stated ... That southerly alignment we feel is not the appropriate location for the
following reasons... Filling of the wetland will occur. The trees along the north, on the north
property line will not be preserved. The final lot configuration, as you see these red lines on
this particular plan here, which show Lake Lucy Road to the south, is less pleasing for the
residential development within the community of Chanhassen. The residents would not enjoy
the view of their backyards abutting the ... wetlands, and I think that's important. For the
' community I think it's important. The proposed northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road,
which is underlined here, will preserve the trees along the north and also will not impact the
wetland in any way. And we've met all the staff conditions for their approval of the
' northerly route with the exception of a couple things Bob has mentioned that we need to look
at a couple items as he has indicated tonight. But let me further go into this item with Lake
Lucy Road to the south. I've drawn a line, you can see here. I call it Section DD. What
I've done is along that line I'm showing on another drawing the existing ground line and the
'
final ground line after development with the elevation of Lake Lucy Road being
approximately like what staff had indicated in their report that it would be if it were along the
southerly route. Existing ground line is the blue line. And proposed ground line is the, I call
it the orange line. The bottom of the hill, being wetland area down here. Top of the hill
being the treed area up here. Generally what happens here is we do encroach into the
wetland with the roadway. But to construct a roadway with Lake Lucy Road being there,
there's definitely going to be some fill into the wetland. In fact I shorten the boulevard up to
10 feet and there's still fill into the wetland. With 3:1 slope, which is... At the other end
where we come up the hill with the lots, I've tried to show you, again to kind of give you a
Planning
physical feel f
be about here
of the house p
into the trees
haven't really
So this is, I'm
about it, how 1
Meeting - September 7, 1994
where things are. This is the center of the cul -de -sac street. The curb would
3 then the right -of -way, !front yard lot line and then the approximate location
, And then the back yard with the 3:1 slope. As you can see, it extends up
I it probably would be much worse than what I've even shown because I
ien that ... back yards at all. It just immediately starts going up to the trees.
ying to demonstrate to you in a more physical view, other than us just talking
3 fits.
Scott: Can I ask you a question? On the, you see where the tree line is. And the existing, it
appears to me t> at you're planning on grading into the trees on the north side of the property.
Is that, or am I eading that incorrectly?
Chuck Plowe:
Scott: Yeah.
Chuck Plowe: 'What would be correct. In order to avoid that we would have to raise this
street up, fill ink) the wetland further. Some things would have to give someplace. Because
we're using our maximum slopes at both; ends. This is going to probably require retaining
walls to even do this. So I'm looking ati,a combination of retaining walls and going into the
trees with the ading because we're probably going across the property lines into the
property, although I haven't shown the property line on here. It's approximately right there.
I guess that's about it. This is the tree line that I'm trying to show you there. The property
line's not going to ... and it continues to rise. Any more questions on this?
Scott: No.
Chuck Plowe: '
just before the ]
better with the 1
curved a little n
flexibility to do
together but we
where we can d
through the cul-
lines and propo
able to extend z
actually from tk
pretty nice lot a
don't impact thi
['his is the northerly alignment which is the plan that I changed or resubmitted
tst week. And we did do some curvature of the street to try and align it
ature road that would connect it down here. As Bob indicated, it needs to be
.ore than what we've shown it and I've discussed it with Dave. There is
that. We didn't do a detailed study of exactly how everything hooked
did start curving it where before it was straight. This lot is large enough
this. When I compare it to the one we just looked at, I've drawn a line
Ie -sac again. Generally falling the same location. Showing existing ground
ed. Again the wetland is at the bottom of the hill. Trees up here. We are
cul -de -sac here. Lake Lucy Road up on the hill. We are able to maintain
curb ... to where we begin our 3:1 slope, we're 110 feet so we do have a
id we do not encroach into the wetland with the bottom of the slope. We
wetland with any fill. And again on this end we're not encroaching into the
R
IPlanning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
trees as well. Now as Bob indicated, there was a problem with this that didn't quite fit. As I
understand you were saying there was still some problems here. Can I ask what those are? I
guess what maybe you're getting at was that the boulevard wasn't the full 20 feet or 21 feet
here. Okay. And that's true. I have about a 12 foot boulevard which allows ... a trail if it
' has to be on that side. But this street will meet State Aid standards. I did discuss with Dave
the possibility of having the trail on the other side and that was a possibility and I think it
would, appropriate decisions do that because when we're dealing with this kind of terrain and
this kind of design, why not put it where there's less resistance. Why not go with the flow
but in trying to put it up here would certainly be more difficult than putting it on the other
side. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that when we compared the two, the north to the
south, this is the environmentally favorable plan. I guess I can say it all I want but I was
hoping I could show you. I don't know whether there's any real need to go into the items
that Bob mentioned but we do have two pipes discharging into this pond here as we indicated
' and staff, we can combine those into one discharge pipe. That's not a problem. A 4:1 slope
getting from the cul -de -sac down to the access there, would simply be a matter of adjusting a
couple ... here so there's plenty of lining up from top to bottom to achieve a 4:1 slope and
that's not a problem either. We've had, as you can see, gone along with a private drive in
lieu of the lots fronting on Lake Lucy Road. We feel that ...and the lots are not going to be
impacted doing it that way. As a matter of fact, Lot 14 is better than it was before as far as
the grading's concerned. We eliminated some retaining walls which were difficult to fit a
pad on that lot...because it was a driveway coming off of Lake Lucy Road in the back
yard ... and difficult to work with. We've now eliminated the retaining wall so it's much better
in that respect so Lot 14 actually became a more viable lot. That was my comments unless
someone else had a question.
' Ledvina: I have a question Mr. Chair. Under staff recommendations related to eliminating
driveways onto Lake Lucy Road. I guess how were we going to do that for Lots 4, 5 and 6
1 that you relabeled on, what block is that? Oh, just that area that you were talking about.
Where does the private drive come from?
Chuck Plowe: We are now extending, rather than having a cul -de -sac in here, we've been
asked to extend the street for the future extension to the north. So we've done that and that
actually made it a little easier for us to do what staff is asking us to look at. And so what we
are proposing is to weave the driveway through the 130 feet of lots. Whatever that is.
Ledvina: Oh, that didn't show up very well on my plan.
Chuck Plowe: It is hard to see.
2
Planning Co 'ssion Meeting - September 7 1994
� P
II
Ledvina: Yes.
'
Chuck Plowe:
That, in most cases, is not fixed by Y an means. It would be ... minimum
amount of trees
..That's what would happen there. This is only a concept. ,
Ledvina: But
at represents about the only alternative for accessing those 3 lots then, is that
right?
Chuck Plowe: In
lieu of going onto Lake Lucy Road. That was felt that that was a better
option...
,
Scott: Good.
y other questions or comments? Excuse me sir, are you a member of the
applicant team?
,
Frank Kelly: Yes.
Good evening. My name is Frank Kelly. I'm the attorney for the
developer. Firs
of all I wish to thank the members of your planning staff for working with
us in trying to
and solutions for the problems with this development. This is very complex
and there's many
problems connected with it and we appreciate the efforts that they have
given us. We feel
that we are ready to accept, and will accept all the suggestions and
recommendatior
s as set out by the Planning Department as shown on page 4 as well as the
additional ones
at were called to our attention, at our last meeting. And by accepting those
recommendatior
s, the planner indicates that... conditions would make the applicant's proposal
acceptable. No
we're not asking for any variances or changes or special privileges in
platting the property
... of the city ordinance and in so doing, the plat, as far as the planner is
concerned, wou
d be acceptable to the plat. And if there are any required changes which the
Planning Depar
ent deems necessary during the course of development of the plat, we
certainly will
working with them ... to meet those and will meet those, whatever...
However, we do
ask that you consider this plat and make your recommendation on the plat to
the Council favorably.
There's nothing more that we can do than meet the requirements as
recommended by
the Planning Department, and we have done that. We only ask that you
approve it subje�a
to those recommendations. Without any reservation whatsoever. Thank
you very much.
Scott: Thank you.
Would anyone else like to speak on behalf of the applicant? This is a
public hearing.
Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Ledvina move
Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried,
I,
The public hearing was opened.
1 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
I
Scott: Can I see a show of hands for people who have come to speak at this particular public
' hearing? Okay, great. Step up.1dentify yourself. Name and address and we'd like to hear
your comments.
' Sam Mancino: Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. We are the neighbors immediately to the
north. I'd like to make a couple of comments—whichever way the plan is finally
recommended. The first point has to do with the fact that with the grading here there are
only a very few number of trees being preserved the way it's presently situation. There is a
recommendation for a 30 foot tree preservation easement along the north property line. I
want to just clarify that that is to be a 30 foot from the northern property line extending south
for the full width, east to west, on that property line. The request that we would have is that
any private drive that is intended to service the other lots, does not encroach on that...whether
that is ... right -of -way for that private drive. Second point I'd like to raise is that we've been
advised by a consulting engineer that a utility hook -up will be necessary to service our
property if we ever choose to develop it, which we don't at this particular time. The easterly
portion that will be shown as a right -of -way and utility hook -up will serve the eastern portion
of our property as well but our western edge there is a requirement for another utility hook -up
to avoid trenching the center of the ravine that goes through our property. We're told there
are other ways to be able to do that but we haven't had a formal ... survey but we're requesting
that. Perhaps Dave, you could help clarify whether that would be feasible.
Hempel: The plan before you this evening show a street and utility extension over the
eastern portion of the Mancino parcel with the extension of Jennifer Way. The Mancino
parcel does have a high point at right about Lot 6 there's a high mound. Then it starts to
gradually break off there... westerly boundary of the development. The existing ravine takes
storm water drainage across the north, right to the west of this development.
Actually... development and that area there is the low point of the neighborhood. And we
1 envision seeing extension of storm sewer along the ravine area and possibly sanitary sewer to
service the adjacent parcel to the north. The Mancino parcel also will be serviced from the
future sewer and water line provided in the subdivision before you here tonight called
Brendon Ponds, which is the westerly portion of this site. We're providing at this time 2 out
of the 3, what we believe are utility service connection points.
Ledvina: Dave, with this development then, are we providing that western utility stub?
don't see it here.
Hempel: No we are not. We're providing an easterly connection. At this point we believe
the appropriate time and place would be with the future development of the outlot that you'll
see on the next subdivision called Brendon Ponds. At that time that parcel develops, that
would be extended northerly.
8
Planning Commission Meetin g - September 7, 1994
P
Ledvina: So w
en that develops, that should provide adequate utility service that's needed
here for this pa.
'on of the Mancino property?
'
Hempel: That's
correct.
,
Sam Mancino:
The issue again we're not engineers but whether you trench through the
middle of a wet.and
...or whether you take it off of another area that wouldn't violate that
ravine quite so
badly ... The third technical point that we'd like to question is that the future
potential for road
connection, which Will also serve to be our utility hook -up, which I believe
comes in through
Jennifer Way, will terminate at the edge of their private drive and will not
be paved completely
up to the edge...is that correct at this point?
Hempel: That'
our intent as long as we extend the street service from the edge of that 30
foot easement at
this point and leave the option open. Whether to extend that street in the
future ... or connect
a street to service that..lot and private driveway. Provide both options.
Sam Mancino:
couple of other points., One, moving the road 60 feet south from where it
'
was originally h
itended. 60 feet from the 30 foot tree easement. We understand but don't
believe it will h
ld 3:1 slopes and be able to do what was originally intended, which is to
provide the roac
bed, the right -of -way and a trail system. And I guess the question of the
trail system is
at as this area develops, more kids are there. Their natural route would be to
the north to the
school and to put that roadway to the south would probably require to cross a
major collector
road. So that's a point that we would like to have considered because it bears
on the grading end
the setbacks... There was a request by staff for some planting of sumac and
seeding of the graded
property. I guess in addition to that we would request, because I'm not
,
sure how effective
this seeding would be, or how quickly that will take root. The sumac will
be a very good
idea but we'd like to request some spruce and other conifers near the top of
the slope to hold
the soil. Also to be able to, there's a sound and visual buffer ... Those are
really the techni
al points I think that we'd like to mention at this time. I think there are
some broader questions
that we have. The thing that seems to be driving this development is
the density. Thi
-. need to get as many lots as possible and more density seems to get more
grading and we
don't believe that, the intent of the comprehensive plan probably took into
account average
situations. Didn't particularly take into account this topographical situation.
I don't believe
that this has the creativity applied to it to develop it to the sensitivity of the
rest of the land.
Another global, broader.- point is that we'd like to see Planning Commission
recommend to
Oty Council, in light of the development that we're going to see in this area,
particularly wi
this development, with the Gestach - Paulson, a noise and construction activity
limitation that 1'
mits it to weekdays so that there would be no noise generated weekends.
That could eitht
r the form of an ordinance or as a development contract because that would
be good for all
f the neighbors. I think that I'd like to invite our architect to help us do
9 �
Planning Commission Meetin g - September 7, 1994
P
I
some thinking about this. Charles Stinson to address some of the things that we've seen at
' this presentation by their engineer.
Charles Stinson: Hello. My name is Charles Stinson. I'm the architect working with the
Mancino's. I specialize in custom homes on unique property and I get involved with some
land planning on certain properties that, in which we're trying to save the trees and respond
to the topography. I wonder if I could use the, your demonstration board for a minute. Just
to clarify. I think Sam commented, covered everything about technically pretty well as far as
the trying to keep the 30 foot preservation zone from the top and in doing so, and whatever
we have on private drives here skate off of that zone because right now as private drives, if
they went over it would wipe out all the trees in that area, which would mean that this
property would have to come down this last lot. I guess Lot 1. I guess the other thing, just
trying to clarify, and this is aside from that project. This being a guy that tries to save the
natural topography whenever I can. Just to clarify the study that was shown as the bad
alternative here I think the, what the city was actually recommending or the staff was that I
' think the southerly drive came up just a little bit higher so it wouldn't be quite as steep as
this. And I think in showing this process here, I think if the road was a little bit over here, as
they proposed, the grading wouldn't be quite so steep going down to the wetlands. There
would be some fill here but I think this whole cut is just based on if there's a cul -de -sac
going up there. If you're trying to put a road out there, then you're digging out the whole
site but I think there's perhaps a whole nother option there that if we could save all that, save
that and do some filling where the roadwork is here, then I'm just curious if the owners,
developers and the engineer considered the fact that the possibility, if a road went on the
southern area and you left all the wetlands the way we have and then at that point we perhaps
this cul -de -sac came over this way to service the homes around here and then the private
drives just went to the remainder of the out parcel and then leaving the natural topography
and the views without getting into anything, was that one of the studies?
"Ge,-ktttlr
Ed-R-ym( ?): Not that I'm aware of.
Chuck Plowe: Let me, I couldn't see exactly what you were just.
Charles Stinson: Okay. Well, and maybe I'll go to the, some of the concern, on the plan
that's proposed right now, there is a cut here which is substantial and pretty substantial going
up to the trees. Does this show your property line or is this the property line?
Chuck Plowe: This is the property line here.
Charles Stinson: Okay. So you're saving the first 30 feet and then dropping down from
there?
10
Planning
Chuck Plowe: i'es.
Meeting - September 7, 1994
Charles Stinson So there's a cut there but at the bottom of the property, the way it's
proposed, or that road area. Not the entire property but this area we're concerned with. The
fill that we're talking about is perhaps 8 .feet higher than the ceiling. About 20 feet of fill
that would occur here?
Chuck Plowe: �t the maximum point, that'd be in the very front of the house near the
wetland ... 1l fee which is about where the road grade is when you...
Charles Stinson So here would be cutting about 12 feet. Here you'd be putting back about
20 feet... I gues the thought I had was, and I'm not speaking for the Mancino's but I'm just
on my own here. Thinking about the environment. If the road went to the south, kind of
curving up here a little bit so there's enough grade for that wetland, would it be possible to
take this cul-de-sac. Leave everything the way you have it here. There's maybe 10 feet of
fill at this point but just taking this cul -de -sac over, feeding the lots here, here, here and here
and then just have a private drive go in to more homes over here. Wouldn't that give you
pretty close to your density or if this perhaps makes a few more valuable because they such
views?
Chuck Plowe: Well I think we avoid private drives as much as possible ... and that's a totally
different concept than what we're looking at. If we did go along with private drives and
eliminate the frontage on Lake Lucy Road, and we did look at several options too. As a
matter of fact, v ve went through them with staff. We showed how they wouldn't work.
Taking the roadl up into here and leaving Lake Lucy Road down there and that ended up
getting a lot of drainage and also some lots with streets on both sides of them so that just
didn't work outl
Charles Stinson# Okay that, again I guess most of the developments I get I end up doing
private drives, or a fair amount of private drives. The reason we do it, and many
communities are getting more receptive to it, it's a way of saving more of the topography.
More of the nataral grades etc. And that's again, just to go over that again, keeping it low,
there would be ery little grading going down to the wetland. This would all be saved and
the cul -de -sac c ming here and private d=ives. Perhaps this is a different concept of private
drives and I'm i iot sure how you feel about it. We've done it quite successfully and if
anybody's interested, I guess ... there's one on Oakland Road in Minnetonka that I did with
Streeter and As ociates and it has worked out quite well. And that's it. Thank you.
Scott: Good,
you. Would anyone;' else like to speak at the public hearing?
11
i
r.
u
u
rl
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Eric Rivkin: Hi. My name is Eric Rivkin, 6095 Steller Court. I'm about, I don't know,
1,000 yards east of the property and I look out onto it into the sunset. Beautiful sunset. It
sets over the hills that they want to take down 80 feet or whatever. And I also am not
opposed to the development but I think that it could, the Ryans could have maybe hired this
wonderful architect here as an adjunct to their team, this planning team because I don't think
it has enough regard for the natural landfonms and I'm opposed to the massive earth moving.
I like you to favor the alignment for the road to the south. I think it should, I agree with
them completely that the road could meander up a little ways so it isn't so straight but I don't
think the plan has got, I don't think the plan's compatible with the surrounding developments.
Lake Lucy Commons and these other large estates which have gone to great lengths in the
community to maintain natural landforms and preserve forested areas, open spaces and
wetlands. I think this is a butchering of the land, just plain and simple and I think much
more sensitivity needs to be applied here. If they have to go back to the drawing board, I
think maybe they should employ on their team an environmental designer because we have
city codes that in my opinion, and I think maybe your opinion, would require them to meet
these philosophies and I was one of the people that helped develop the comprehensive plan 5
years ago to try and get laws that would preserve, prevent this kind of thing from happening.
The area between TH 41 and Galpin is a recognized natural resource corridor for wildlife
who regularly travel in all seasons of the year between two great naturally preserved areas.
Lake Minnewashta Park and the Lake Lucy area. And we all enjoy that in this northern part
of Chanhassen and we want to see that preserved. I represent, as a Co -Chair of the Lake
Lucy Homeowners Association and we enjoy wildlife. We have osprey. We have bald
eagles. We have great blue herons. All kinds of wildlife. Fox and even an occasional, the
DNR said a cougar. But anyway there's no natural corridor between these planned in this
development and it will be too greatly disturbed and devastating. I don't think any
authorization should be given to this development that destroys the natural features of land,
be it corridor, wetlands, wildlife habitat or vegetation lowland form. I think the developer
should be required to propose and concept to a plan which meets the city codes and
protection of environmental features and relates to the site's natural resources. And above all
gets respect as to the existing development pattern set in the community. I favor those ... lot
sizes. I think that their, the access alternative from the north or this long private drive, I
think it's a good alternative to consider to preserve that hillside, the top. I don't think it
needs to be destroyed... I was at the top of that hill last night. I walked the site with the
Mancino's and I don't think that there is any economical hardship in doing that. I would
result in a lot less grading problems and if you look at Fox Hollow, there's plenty of
examples of tuck under houses on top of hills that sell for a half a million dollars that have
spectacular views of the Lotus Lake area. Here you can see 2 miles from the top of that hill.
It's one of the highest points in Chanhassen... and it's absolutely magnificent and I don't think
they'll have any problem with maybe even cutting down the lot density up there just to
Lpreserve that and get their money of the property. The trail system. I paid $660.00 for a trail
1 12
Planning
system which I
trail, a real trail.
natural area like
will walk in pea
more an amenity
they do that app
the Lake Lucy F
connect with the
with Lake Minn
areas which woi
the natural corri
would satisfy th,
for years ... at thi
what kind of tre
should have a re
don't mean Dou
and... conditions.
rows and rows c
corridors so the;
to the tree cove
drainage intends
the road. Or ex
Chuck Plowe:
ion Meeting - September 7, 1994
lon't have and I expected with the Lake Lucy extension to have a really nice
Not a sidewalk on a street and not a sidewalk, but a real trail through
they have in Minnetonka. Anderson Lakes and in Jonathan where people
;e and harmony with nature. Enjoy the wildlife and everything. It's much
to the community and will increase the lot values I think considerably if
•oach rather than just blow it off as an afterthought. I think that by aligning
.oad to winding around the southern portion gives it more opportunity to
property to the west. Also for this corridor to, the trail system connect up
;washta would be perfect. So you could have spots to enjoy the wildlife
ld be given to the public as conservation easements and sell this thing with
tors and sell this thing with the trail system that people want and I think it
community and needs and wants and desires for this that we've been having
podium many times complaining about. Let's see. Trees. I don't know
planting program they have but I think it's pretty clear in the code that we
storation that should have native species only that is native to this area. I
glas fir or Colorado spruce and things that are not suitable for the soil
If there are, and I don't mean like army landscaping where you've got just
,f sumac but take the groves of trees and replant them and restore these
,'re intact and that the disturbance is at a minimum, both to the wetlands and
. One question that I have for the developer, and the engineer. Is there any
d to go east of Lake Lucy Road from there? Either under the road or over
-use me, Galpin.
es, to the Lake Lucy watershed...
Eric Rivkin: Is there the surface area of water area, is there estimates of how much surface
water there is ... to the Lake Lucy watershed? Is it existing? Plans for existing or go beyond
that.
Hempel: Mr. (
is in the proces
wide comprehe
comprehensive
year that we're
quality basins t
County Road 1
water will incrt
underneath Gal
down to Lake ]
iairman, maybe I can address that. The applicant's original design—the city
of adopting the Surface Water Management Program which will provide city
sive storm drainage which has water quality ... to preserve wetland areas as a
plan. We're trying to implement that plan with this ponding. This is the first
mplementing this program and this development is providing storm water
treat storm water runoff and will better discharge the water underneath
7 to Galpin Blvd to drain towards Lake Lucy basin area. The volume of
tse the velocity of water but will not restrict the impact to the culvert
in Blvd. Potentially there will be a trunk storm sewer system from Galpin
ucy with the remaining part...
13
1
71,
1�
t
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Eric Rivkin: Okay. I'd like to propose, I have a map that shows the watershed to Lake
Lucy, okay. Can I put that up? .
Scott: Sure, go ahead.
' Eric Rivkin: ...I want to show the engineer first. This shows the Lake Lucy watershed area.
This is Galpin Road right here, CR 117. This is all the...
Aanenson: I really think the questions are best directed to our engineer.
Eric Rivkin: Okay, this is Lake Harrison. There's Galpin Blvd here. You could pass this
map around while I'm talking. The point I'm trying to make here is that, the western part of
Lake Lucy Highlands development runs into wetlands which are on my property and Prince's
property and Class A wetlands and they're very sensitive. They've got rare plants in there.
There's already a sedimentation problem now where the culvert is overflowing with sediments
from the existing driveways and streets, whatever, sand you know from salting and stuff, and
I want, as a representative of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, we would like to have
a condition that prevents any additional water runoff from this development into the Lake
Lucy watershed. You have plenty of mitigation area planned for this development and I think
every bit of this water is going to carry pollutants from fertilizers from lawns and the nutrient
runoff from development which is going to pollute the wetlands like you wouldn't believe.
It's already over loaded. The culvert every spring, which is always full and has not been
cleaned out by the city as it should have been and ... storm water management program and the
conditions of the development, the Steller Court development which was passed in 1986.
There's not supposed to be an increase more than 2 tons of sediment coming out of that
culvert and I'm going to make sure that that is upheld. I don't think that engineering wise
it's going to work by having any additional runoff, other than what is naturally occurring
right now. And what is going off right now, even though there's fertilizers from the farms
that are farming now, it is filtered by dirt and plants and vegetative material. If you're
adding street runoff and we all know that that stuff is highly polluting and I do not want to
see any more water coming from this development into the Lake Lucy Watershed. We've
already got enough stress as it is. The Walker Ponds over at Willow Ridge do not work
because you do not have natural vegetative areas surrounding the wetlands. The storm water
just ran through the holding pond and then overflowed right into that big pond by Lake Lucy
Road. And then into the Lake Lucy through an outlet through a massive 10 acre wetland and
still caused algae growth. That's how much pollution there was from the development and
it's still going on today. So I think it needs to be taken from a preventive stance and I
recommend that no water or all the water in that development stay there and be dealt with
and conclusively. Another thing about the wetlands, the material.-man made wetlands must
be sure to make up for the ones that you're replacing. I noticed the mitigation areas with this
1 14
Planning Conuy#ssion Meeting - September 7, 1994
plan. Is that correct? Okay. I think whatever standards there are to help make sure that they
are completely natural in development of ,...thank you.
Scott: Thank you. u. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir.
,
Jerome Carlson: M name is Jerome Carlson. I live at 6950 Gal in Blvd or Road,
Je y P
depending upon which post office you talk to. In following the proposal to date, I'm struck
over and over a ain by the feeling that there is nature and the development are not in sync.
As I look aroun at development that's going around that area, Lundgren Bros as you know
purchased the Song property and this is 100 plus acres ... and I believe the density that they
achieved on that very interesting piece of property, which I think is fairly well known to this
,
commission, was about 1.1 houses per acre. We have 25 acres bordering TH 41, part of
which the new Lake Lucy Road would come through, which is the old Westside Baptist
parcel. And in reviewing that with a few different developers we have again arrived in terms
of preserving th � naturalness of the land,= ,which is one of the perquisites frankly before I'm
going to sell thz t property to anybody. You end up with about 1.1 houses per acre in the
final analysis. You look at the Gestach and Paulson, all this terrain is the same. It's different
,
but it's the sam�. It's very hilly and it's',very interesting and it's very beautiful. The Gestach
and Paulson, w �'ch is right on the north side, so I've talked about the south, the west and
now the north s de of where we live. Th. ey have 25.85 acres with 3 outlots. They're looking
at 21 single farr 'ly lots. So you throw in the 3 outlots and maybe that will bring it up to
about 1.1 house per acre in the final analysis. It feels like there is almost some agreement
that exists somewhere that dictates x number of lots and on and on and I submit to the Ryans
and to this commission that there does not need to be an economic hardship concern in my
view at all. I think that the property, if developed in a manner which fights nature less and
leaves the natural beauty present, for a potential homeowner in fact increases the value of that
property enormously for someone who desires that kind of a setting for a family home. And
therefore I would really suggest that this commission take a look at what has been transpiring
and what is transpiring, if you will, right'i4round that area as far as the type of land, the
topography and how that has ended up equating to actual lots in the final analysis and I think
you'll find that .1 is probably a fairly accurate number and the reason is because of the
topography. d I submit that these other folks have worked hard at protecting it. I can tell
you that the Lu dgren Bros have to the south of us because I've been a big part of that
door having the
process with th( Song's. I don't really want to live right next to, spent
money and the i' a and the effort to protect the environment with our home site area there,
which is subs tial. We've protected it 'I think as well as anyone can. And then have the
field leveled off and fill with houses is destroying the flow and the rthym of that
adjacent
particular area. I just, I don't think it's necessary. I don't think there's an economic hardship
question at stake at all. That there are buyers out there who will enjoy and will pay the price
for that natural auty. And there are other areas that simply don't have that kind of terrain
,
15
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
to that extent. Severity at exists in that area. So I would ask that the commission tY ss on give that
some thought and consider the ratio that has been working for other people in the immediate
' area as a maximum. And I don't know that that property even, I don't know what the ratio
should be on this particular piece. 1.1 there may not be absolutely accurate. I haven't sat
down and figured it out because it's not...Relative to the views from our property looking
rnorth. Until there is more of a plan that exists and this commission and others perhaps are
seriously interested in approving, I don't think I need to spend your time talking about
whether or not some sort of tree barrier or some sort of screening is necessary or not from
my point of view. But I don't know that that's been discussed at all up to this point and I
would simply like to be on record as saying that may or may not be an issue ... spills down
into something specific. Thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir.
' Peter Davis: My name is Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Blvd. I'd like to reiterate
several of the points that have been raised by Sam Mancino and some of the others who
1 spoke here tonight. I'm representing myself as well as several neighbors who weren't able to
make it to the hearing tonight who all have a deep concern over the original concept or
design of this proposed subdivision. No one has an interest in standing in the way of the
development because we all know it's coming. But it seems like in the case of some of the
sections of the City Code, particularly when I call out Section 1860, which specifically says,
it talks about the lots should be placed ... to protect natural amenities such as vegetation,
wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. I believe the intent of that, and I
really kind of look at the intent as being lots should be placed. Not we'll take some land and
we'll put as many lots on it. And I wanted to reiterate a deep concern that this seems to be
driven from the standpoint of trying to increase the density for the number of homes rather
than really trying to preserve that land and all of the other constituencies that represent an
ecosystem or the wildlife as well as the aesthetics of the area that this... represents. That was
really the extent of my comment. Was to reiterate the one section of the code as it related to
sort of are lots and topography and coming in which order... subdivision.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Yes sir.
Marty Gustafson: Good evening. My name is Marty Gustafson. I live at 6691 Galpin,
which is right on the northeast corner of Lake Lucy and Galpin Blvd. I'd just like to restate
what the previous speakers have said. That the beauty of the land that the Ryan's own is in
the rolling topography. And to go in and bulldoze that and just kind of level it all off, to me
is just like raping the land. If you look at the development south. I can't recall the name of
it but south of Prince's property, that land was pretty much flat to begin with and it just, it's
' not unpleasant but it's just boring. You know you've got a difference in elevation of 20 or
16
Planning
fission Meeting - September 7, 1994
30 feet probabl' in the whole development and everybody can look out their front window
into their neighbor's front window and right on down the street And it just, to me is boring.
And most every night I can watch the deer walk through the Ryan's property and it's just the
roll is just beau tiful to watch the sunset through the trees and I would hate to see that get
leveled. My o er concern is drainage. If the wetlands are filled in, where's that water going
to go? I imagine it's either going to go 'through my property or through Mezzenga's. Both
of us abut Lake Lucy Road. Is there going to be massive trenching or digging? And if it is,
it's all going d wn into Lake Lucy. You know that swamp is filling up fast The lake is
filling up fast ji st because of all the vegetation. You can watch it from year to year. And
pretty soon that s, there isn't going to be any water showing at all. So I would like to see
whatever drainage is required stays on the property and not get drained off and create
problems for someone else. Thank you very much.
Scott: Would anybody else like to make any comments? Yes sir.
Lynn Rothberger: Lynn Rotherberger. I'm at 6681 Galpin and really only had just one
comment to m e. I've heard a lot of the speakers tonight speak of the surrounding
properties. Lake. Lucy Highlands, etc and matching the topography that is there. It seems to
me that there is minimum acreage requirement on that land of something about 2 1/2 acres
and the plans d at I've seen, I don't see any attempts at all to be a match of that in the
proposed devel pment and I just would have a concern about the density or the amount of
density and po lation of housing that's going to come into that property. I too very much
enjoy the wildlife and the sunsets and the topography itself and I guess I have to agree with
all the rest of tt a speakers that you're going to have to pretty well flatten that out to put
housing in them and that concerns me.
Scott: And yottr comment, part of the matter in front of us is the rezoning of the property
from RR to RS '-, which means Rural Residential which is big lots. RSF is 15,000 square
foot minimums so that's part of the process. Good, thank you. Any other comments?
Seeing none, m iiy I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Ledvina
motion i
Conrad: I thins
here. Staff has
can be tweaked
guess I'm not g
quite a while.
natural asset it
Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
The public hearing was closed.
it's, I don't want to get into details tonight I think there are a lot of details
-lovered them. The applicant has covered them. There are a lot of things that
with lots. A lot of things that can be tweaked based on staff report and I
)ing to spend my time going through item by item because that would take
think when you note what the property looks like, you know what a real
> out there, and I don't see this plan really taking advantage of the natural
17 1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
assets so you know really bottom line, I have to turn it down. I'm not getting into the details
in terms of the individual plan tonight. They preserve very few trees. There's massive
1 grading. They did not fit with the surrounding neighbors. And you know, those three things
just all by itself Mr. Chairman make this, I don't think this is an appropriate subdivision at
this time. The other thing that I'm concerned with, and I want to make it a natural amenity.
tThe area is just so beautiful. I want to make sure that when it does develop, that our trail
system is taken advantage of that throughout. That's real important so I think we not only
have, the developer has an opportunity to not only make the money and not only do it well
fitting with the natural environment, but also to give the community something in the process.
And again, a lot of us have been out there. It is just a terrific area. It is one of those unique
spots in Chanhassen and I don't think we, this plan meets any of our base criteria for a
subdivision fitting with the natural surroundings so Mr. Chairman I'm going to be as brief as
I can and say this subdivision should be turned down.
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: Thank you. I have some questions for staff. Last time we met we discussed the
feasibility study and I heard the applicant talk about a supplement feasibility study and
preferred northerly route. Dave, could you give us a little more background and what was the
actual feasibility recommendation. I don't want to get into it in real detail but I just want to
understand exactly what was the preferred alternative.
Hempel: The feasibility study looked at two alternatives for extending Lake Lucy Road from
Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard through what was called the Westside Baptist Church
site which is on the far west side immediately adjacent to Trunk Highway 41. That was the
' particular parcel that was, the two alignments were discussed. The southerly alignment and
northerly alignment. The southerly alignment was closer to Mr. Carlson's property and had a
base and a slope and significant trees to the south of it. There was also a graded wetland that
1 was... The northerly alignment through that parcel with the existing driveway access on the
site, it tended to meander the road a little bit more. The only alignment that I'm aware of
through the Ryan parcel is a southerly alignment but potential for the northerly alignment was
also given through this outlot of this Gestach - Paulson development, Brendon Pond to leave
the flexibility for Lake Lucy Road to be extended through the Ryan parcel somewhere in this
area. It wasn't officially mapped but the consulting engineer reviewed it and the proposal for
the feasibility study showed the southerly alignment for the Ryan parcel. The two alignments
that were reviewed by the City Council was the northerly and southerly alignment across and
' into the Westside Baptist site and the Gestach- Paulson site. It's leaving the opportunity open
as you continue to the east.
1
18
Planning Co ; ssion Meeting - September 7, 1994
Ledvina: So th re really wasn't two alignments that were mapped out for this property, is
that correct? There was only this southerly alignment?
Hempel: As far as I'm aware...
Ledvina: Okay. And then as it relates to the alignment, the applicant has suggested that that
would amount to a wetland filling. Was at also identified in the feasibility study?
Hempel: M understanding, based on the conversations with Bill Engelhardt that there was '
P Y
no intention of IMing the wetland with the southerly.
Ledvina: Okay. So in other words, it would be relatively easy to realign that roadway
slightly to the north, whatever it takes, 10 or 15 feet or 20 feet, to avoid that wetland filling.
So we're really not talking about trading off wetland filling in choosing that alignment, is that
correct?
Hempel: That' correct.
Ledvina: Okay. Now I want to understand the conservation easement. You've got quite a
long description here Bob and does it cover, does it indeed describe the northerly 30 feet of
the plan?
Generous: Yes.
Ledvina: It does, okay. That's really all I need to know. Okay. Because it talks about a lot
of different chunks here and that's the legalese of describing which lot that covers I'm sure. ,
Your recomme (Nation number 16, it says plat the land west of Lot 14, Block 2 as an outlot.
Are you talking about, now I know this relates to the western portion of Outlot 6 as they've
hand drawn it here. Now you're saying put a property line and make that long narrow chunk
an outlot, is that correct?
Generous: Co ect.
Ledvina: Okay I wanted to make sure that was clear. Let's see. I think overall, I'm
leaning towards some of the core issue as it relates to the development of the site as
proposed. I woald agree with the commentors from the public. Also Ladd's comments. I
feel that as we discussed and recommended the applicant pursue last time, we all agreed that '
the Lake Lucy oad alignment provide the most sensitive course for this road through this
parcel of this si e. We suggested that the applicant go ahead and look at alternative ways of
preserving that ull in that western portion of the property. And I do like the idea of going in '
19
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
with a street off of Jennifer Way with potentially some private drives. That way I think that
could provide access to that area and again preserve that. I don't know procedurally how I
' would propose to do this. If we would add conditions and send it along or that in such a
condition that we'd want to see it tabled or I'm just thinking out loud here a little bit on
procedurally how this might be handled. But I think overall we need to have some work
fdone on this plat before it can really be viewed as an acceptable environmentally sensitive
proposal.
Scott: What would you like to see? What would you suggest for the applicant?
Ledvina: Well I don't, I'm suggesting that we table this and see a rework of the design for
this western portion and we've made that suggestion previously and I don't know where the
applicant is at with that but I'd be willing to look at it one more time.
' Scott: Ron.
Nutting: Some of Matt's questions answered some of mine. I think there are a lot of details.
I think the plan we're looking at is, I think counsel for the applicant has indicated that you
know we're being asked to approve what staff has recommended and I don't think staff has
recommended this as their first choice. They've done a second choice because there was not
a willingness to look at the preferred southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road. Having been
to the site and looking at it and from our recommendations last meeting, the southerly
alignment seems to make the most sense to me. With that in mind, and I guess I echo Ladd's
comments and I think that of a lot of the citizens here. I don't think this development does
the best job of dealing with the existing topography or the surrounding developments so
whether it's a tabling issue or a chance to rework or that we deny it, I think that's maybe a
procedural question that I'd put to my other members but I'm not ready to go forward with
this plan. I am open to seeing a rework of the plan.
Scott: And what sort of direction would you give?
Nutting: Well, I can't develop it for them. I'm not a developer but what I see is not
consistent with surrounding developments and topography. There have been some
suggestions put forth but that's really for the developer and their advisors to look at. If it's
an extension of James Court into the westerly portion of the land, I can't say for sure and I
can't sit here and try to visualize it and say do this and all will be well. So I guess the main
concern is just that it doesn't make sense with the land and the surrounding development.
Scott: So you 'r e th inkin g primarily manly make be tter use of the existing topography? Is that one
that you're getting?
20
Planning Comm2ssion Meeting - September 7, 1994
Nutting: Absol
tely.
Scott: Okay.
Nutting: Which
will impact density. There's a lot of issues there.
Scott: Okay. Just
a question. Kate, when was this preliminary plat and rezoning, when was
that presented to
staff because I know we've got a, we have two different timeframes that we
deal with.
Aanenson: The
ordinance states that you have 45 days to make a recommendation to the City
Council ... and I believe
that date was August 17th. So accordingly... you have one more
chance to review
which is September 21st...
Scott: Okay. I'm
not going to echo any comments. I'd like to have a motion please.
Unless you wan
to discuss. Obviously tabling we'd get it back. We may see the same thing
all over again.
Denying it automatically sends it to the City Council with our comments on
why we're deny
g it so.
Nutting: I would
be open to tabling it. I think the property is going to be developed. I
mean it's not a
issue of developing it or not It's a question of getting something that makes
sense so.
Scott: Okay. 1
ou're thinking tabling?
Conrad: Mr. Chairman,
why don't you ask the developer what his choice is.
Ed Ryan: Do y
u want me to step up to the podium?
Scott: No, that
won't be necessary.
Ed Ryan: I gu
s I would prefer you approve it obviously but if you're not willing to
approve it, I guess
I'd prefer you deny and then we have the opportunity to go forward and
that's what we
ant.
Scott: Okay.
I have a motion please?
Conrad: We do
have a rezoning. I'll make the motion to deny the preliminary plat but do
we need to discuss
the rezoning issue? ,
21
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
IAanenson: Yeah.
Scott: Yeah, we could not, this preliminary plat would not fit RR zoning so.
Aanenson: If you don't approve the plat, then the Council wouldn't have. If the Council
chooses to approve it, you haven't recommended on the rezoning...
Conrad: Why should I recommend approval on the rezoning if I don't like what's going to
' go on it?
Aanenson: You can make a different motion to ... whether you choose to approve or deny the
Council's still going to make their own decision so in principal, if you want to go on record
and make some recommendations ... but not to make any recommendation.
' Conrad: I'm not sure what signal I'm sending when. I not saying that this shouldn't be
rezoned. It's just that this particular plat is not what I want to see so that's always been
' confusing to me. You know it's like what signal am I sending.
Scott: Usually it's more consistent if both are acted upon the same way.
' Ledvina: Well if you look at as a package, I guess. Is that how you would prefer it?
' Aanenson: Yes. If you don't ...no matter what motion you state, whether you approve or
deny the rezoning, Council still has the right to...
' Conrad: Well we'll just administratively go through this. I make a motion that we deny the
rezoning of Case #94 -3 rezoning 37.92 acres from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single
Family Residential.
Scott: Okay. Is there a second?
Nutting: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the rezoning. Is there any discussion?
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council deny Rezoning #94 -3 rezoning 37.92 acres from RR to RSF. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Scott: Can I have another please?
22
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Conrad: Yes, I make a recommendation the Planning Commission denies approval of
Preliminary Pla #94 -7 based on our previous comments in terms of the plat's lack of
sensitivity to the surrounding, which includes the mass grading. It's lack of sensitivity to the
neighboring cor imunity and it's non, and the fact that it didn't incorporate our primary
location for Lake Lucy Road.
Scott: Okay. I9 there a second?
Nutting:
Conrad moved Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council d6y Preliminary Plat #94 -7 based on the previous comments regarding the
plat's lack of s nsitivity to the surrounding area, mass grading and the location of Lake
Lucy Road. 1 voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: Counci an Mason, thank you for taking notes. Just a.
Generous: There's a WAP, wetland alteration permit.
Scott: Don't u e that acronym in that way again.
Ledvina: I move that we deny, or we recommend denial of Wetland Alteration Permit
Section 20 -407.
Scott: Okay, isl there a second?
Nutting:
Ledvina moved, d Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council d ny Wetland Alternation Permit #94 -3. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Scott: Editorial comment. The reason why we're denying this and passing this on is that we
did not believe that we're going to get anything better back from the applicant so we're
basically dumping it on our colleagues in the City Council and I would encourage any of you
to follow the issue because the final decision is not made here. It's made at the Council level
and I'd like to thank you all for coming for this issue.
23
CHARLES W. PLOWS, CONSULTING ENGINEER
9180 LEXINGTON AVE. N.E, CIRCLE PINES, MN 55014
(612) 785 -1043 FAX 786 -6007
September 14,1994 ►`�
Bob Generous
; .
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Shamrock Ridge, Preliminary Plat
Dear Mr. Generous,
Per our meeting on Monday, September 12, at your office we have made further
changes to the plans for preliminary plat approval.
It was staff's concern that the north boulevard area on Lake Lucy Road was not
wide enough to comfortably provide space for the proposed 8 foot wide trail. To
allow ample room it was agreed that the roadway would be shifted southerly.
The roadway has been revised from 60 feet to 85 feet at it's closest point from
the north property line.
In conjunction with moving the roadway it was also agreed that a private drive in
place of Gwendolen Court would be used. This will remove one lot and allow
more room for spacing of four lots in this area and pull the toe of slope further
away from the wetland.
The connection of Lake Lucy Road to Brendon Pond was reviewed and a curved
alignment as shown on the revised plan will provide an easy connection. -
The private road serving Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 4 has been moved outside of the
tree preservation area along the north property line.
The storm sewer discharge into the westerly treatment pond has been combined
into one discharge pipe. A maximum 4:1 access slope to pond is being provided.
There have been numerous changes made to the preliminary plat and grading
plan to address requirements and concerns by staff. Enviromental concerns
have been a priority as the process has progressed to this plan. Preservation of
trees, wetlands and maintaining some of the large variations in elevation
throughout the site has been a part of the present design.
Mr. Ge
page 2
Based on
understar
plat.
Please ca
Sincerely
is
14,1994
iur September 12th meeting andthe attached revised plans it is our
ing that staff will recommend approval of the proposed preliminary
with any questions or comments regarding the above.
Charles W. Plowe, P.E.
CWP /zs
enc.
cc: Ed Rya